Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer: patient organisation YouTube video sponsorship not clearly declared from the outset

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/3349/5/20 and AUTH/3350/5/20
Parties	Anonymous v Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance)
Issue	Declaration of sponsorship on a patient organisation video (YouTube)
Patient organisation	Anticoagulation UK
Content	Podcast/video about anticoagulation and coronavirus/Covid-19
Complaint received	22 May 2020
Case completed	18 January 2021
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	9.1, 27.3, 27.9
No breach clauses	2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Appeal	No appeal

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous member of the public complained about an Anticoagulation UK YouTube video (about anticoagulation and coronavirus/Covid-19) where pharmaceutical company support was, in their view, only revealed at the end of the ~33-minute video.
The complainant said there was no sponsorship declaration at 00:00 and that the declaration appeared only at ~32:25.
The complainant also alleged the YouTube description text and the patient organisation’s homepage banner linking to the video did not mention pharmaceutical company support.
Bristol-Myers Squibb responded on behalf of the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, stating it was an arm’s length grant following an unsolicited request and that a certified, signed Letter of Agreement required acknowledgement of support.
The Alliance said that, when it checked (28–29 May 2020), sponsorship was declared on the patient organisation website banner, in static text beneath the YouTube video, and within the video (at the end).
The Panel noted evidence that the banner/text/video declarations changed over time; the patient organisation said changes were made in response to external requests.
The Panel queried whether the font size of the YouTube static text was sufficient for sponsorship to be obvious to viewers.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 27.9 (sponsorship not clearly acknowledged from the outset).
Breach of Clause 27.3 (written agreement not unequivocal that sponsorship must be clearly acknowledged and apparent from the start).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
No breach of Clause 2 (Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted it).
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