AUTH/3337/4/20: Anonymous v Bio Products Laboratory (LinkedIn share of Telegraph Covid-19 ‘hyperimmune’ article) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3337/4/20
Complainant	Anonymous (non-contactable), described themselves as member of the public/media
Company	Bio Products Laboratory
Material	LinkedIn post sharing a Telegraph article about Covid-19 antibody therapies and “hyperimmune” shots
Allegation	Promotion of an unlicensed medicine and its off-label use to the general public
Clauses considered	9.1, 26.1, 26.2
Decision	No breach
Key reasoning	No prescription only medicine existed at the time; Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 apply only to POMs (very narrow technical point). Panel also did not consider BPL promoted an unlicensed medicine to the public on the evidence available.
Complaint received	23 April 2020
Case completed	7 January 2021
Applicable Code year	2019
Appeal	No appeal
Company action	LinkedIn post deleted in May 2020 to avoid potential confusion

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant (describing themselves as public/media) complained about a Bio Products Laboratory (BPL) LinkedIn post sharing a Telegraph article titled: ‘UK research on Covid-19 treatment using survivors’ blood “going at snail’s pace”’.
The complainant alleged the LinkedIn post promoted an unlicensed medicine and its off-label use to the general public.
The LinkedIn post (from BPL’s corporate account) stated: ‘BPL’S [named employee] comments on “hyperimmune” shots and the aim for BPL to be manufacturing them by the end of July 2020’ and linked to the Telegraph article.
The Telegraph had approached BPL for comment; no transcript of the interview was available and the employee was not consulted on the final article text.
BPL deleted the LinkedIn post in May 2020 to avoid potential confusion; it said the post had not been reviewed under its social media SOPs because it was not viewed as promotional or as non-promotional material requiring prior review.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
The Panel ruled no breach of Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 because, at the time of publication, BPL did not have a prescription only medicine available; Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 apply only to prescription only medicines (a “very narrow technical point”).
The Panel also ruled no breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards), concluding that on the evidence available BPL had not promoted an unlicensed medicine to the public as alleged.
No appeal.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access