AUTH/3357/5/20: Complainant v Colonis Pharma Ltd – website product pages alleged to advertise POMs to the public (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3357/5/20
Parties	Complainant v Colonis Pharma Limited
Complaint received	29 May 2020
Case completed	11 February 2021
Applicable Code year	2019
Allegation	Advertising prescription-only medicines to the public via corporate website product pages
Media/channel	Corporate website (internet)
Company action during case	Temporarily removed the product pages from its website
Panel decision	No breach
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 26.1, 28.1
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

🎬 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 complainant (independent healthcare digital consultant/writer) alleged Colonis advertised prescription-only medicines (POMs) to the public via the “products” page of its corporate website.
The complainant argued POM information should be restricted to health professionals and not accessible to the general public.
The products page listed portfolio products with pack photographs, name (generic/brand), strength and dosage form; further product pages included (where applicable) key indication(s), therapeutic area, formulation, storage, pack size, device info, batch size, stability data and site of manufacture, plus links to SPC and PIL on eMC.
Colonis said the website was certified as non-promotional (last certified 17 October 2019) and the content was factual reference information permitted under Clause 26.2; it temporarily removed the product pages during the case.
The Panel noted a “Get in touch” form on each product page and expressed concern it could be seen as proactively inviting queries about specific POMs; however, this was not part of the complaint so no ruling was made on it.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
No breach of Clause 26.1 (advertising POMs to the public).
No breach of Clause 28.1 (internet material requirements) as the Panel did not consider the material promotional.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards).
No breach of Clause 2 (discredit to the industry).

🔒

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