ViiV breached ABPI Code after BMJ-hosted Dovato tile omitted generic name, PI link and black triangle (AUTH/3338/4/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3338/4/20
Company	ViiV Healthcare UK Limited
Product	Dovato (dolutegravir/lamivudine)
Channel/material	BMJ website digital advertisement “tile” linking to a microsite
Complainant	Concerned UK health professional
Main issues	Brand name shown without adjacent generic name; no PI or single-click link; black triangle missing when required; not certified
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	26 April 2020
Case completed	21 September 2020
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 4.1; Clause 4.3; Clause 4.10; Clause 14.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

A UK health professional complained about a BMJ-hosted digital advertisement “tile” for Dovato (dolutegravir/lamivudine) placed by ViiV Healthcare UK Limited.
The tile showed the ViiV corporate logo and the brand name “Dovato”, with a link to “visit microsite”.
The complainant said the tile did not include the generic name, an inverted black triangle, or a unique identifying number, and queried whether it had been certified.
ViiV said it had not commissioned/authorised the brand name appearing on the tile; BMJ inserted “Dovato” without permission and linked the tile to ViiV’s certified microsite.
After notification, BMJ removed the tile the next day (28 April 2020) and the linked digital content was also turned off that day to update prescribing information.
The Panel reiterated that companies are responsible for acts/omissions of agents/third parties working on their behalf within the scope of the Code.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found for failure to include non-proprietary name adjacent to brand name on the tile.
Breach found for absence of prescribing information or a clear, prominent single-click link to it.
Breach found because the tile had not been certified.
Breach found because the black triangle was not included when it was required at first use (even though it was no longer required by the time the complaint was received).
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