Britannia Pharmaceuticals: promotional email sent without consent and no robust unsubscribe process (AUTH/3344/5/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3344/5/20
Parties	Health Professional v Britannia Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Issue	Email distribution of promotional material (Kinetic magazine) and mailing list/consent governance
Product referenced	Apo-go (apomorphine)
Complaint received	04 May 2020
Case completed	02 December 2020
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1; Clause 9.9; Clause 11.3; Clause 15.2
No breach	Clause(s) 9.1 (on the narrow ground of timing during Covid-19)
Appeal	No appeal
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

📋

⌄

A health professional said they had emailed Britannia Pharmaceuticals Ltd three times over 12 months asking to be removed from all mailing lists, but still received an emailed copy of Kinetic from a sales representative.
Kinetic (March 2020 edition) was a magazine on practical management of Parkinson’s disease; the cover stated it was initiated and funded by Britannia and that the company’s products would be discussed.
Prescribing information for Apo-go (apomorphine) appeared on the back cover.
The complainant said sending promotional material during the Covid-19 crisis was in poor taste and suggested the representative was under pressure to distribute it widely.
Britannia’s internal investigation indicated it did not have a distribution list for promotional material at the time and that consent/unsubscribe governance was not robust.
An internal email in April 2020 circulated the magazine to representatives as a way to “touch base” when face-to-face interactions were limited; Britannia accepted the email lacked sufficient guidance and had not been approved/reviewed by compliance/medical affairs as it should have been.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found of Clause 9.9 (promotional email sent without prior permission).
Breach found of Clause 11.3 (mailing lists not kept up-to-date; removal requests not effectively actioned).
Breach found of Clause 15.2 (representatives did not maintain high standards/comply with Code requirements, including consent for promotional emails).
Breach found of Clause 9.1 (failure to maintain high standards, based on the deficient processes/governance and confused understanding of consent/mailing lists/GDPR).
No breach of Clause 9.1 on the narrow ground of timing during Covid-19 (the Code did not prohibit distribution during the pandemic if otherwise compliant), but a breach of Clause 9.1 was still ruled on broader process/standards grounds.
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