AstraZeneca LinkedIn post about COVID-19 antibodies and a ‘potential’ vaccine: no breach on appeal (AUTH/3364/6/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3364/6/20
Parties	Complainant v AstraZeneca
Material	LinkedIn post by a senior executive and engagement (‘likes’ etc) by UK employees; linked corporate media article
Channel	LinkedIn and AstraZeneca global corporate website (media section)
Issue alleged	Promotion of an unlicensed medicine (including to the public)
UK nexus / scope	Panel and Appeal Board considered the post within scope due to UK-based global function and UK employee engagement disseminating content
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 26.1, 26.2
Panel decision	Breach of Clause 9.1 and Clause 2; no breach of Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 (technical point: Clauses 26.1/26.2 apply to prescription only medicines)
Appeal outcome	Appeal successful; no breach of Clause 9.1 and consequently no breach of Clause 2; overall no breach of the Code
Complaint received	18 June 2020
Case completed	18 March 2021
Applicable Code year	2019

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 that a LinkedIn post by a senior AstraZeneca executive promoted an unlicensed medicine to the general public.
The post announced licensing coronavirus-targeting monoclonal antibodies from Vanderbilt University and plans to advance two mAbs into clinical evaluation for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
The post linked to a June 2020 media article on AstraZeneca’s global corporate website.
Most of the linked article discussed monoclonal antibodies, but the final paragraph also referenced AstraZeneca’s agreement with the University of Oxford for the “global development and distribution” of the University’s “potential recombinant adenovirus vaccine”.
AstraZeneca stated the post/article were reviewed and approved internally, but after the complaint it found the US-based employee had amended approved LinkedIn copy before posting; the post was later aligned back to the approved version.
AstraZeneca also stated that post-approval additions were made to the website article (details of US government agencies), without changing the overall context.
Eleven UK-based AstraZeneca employees engaged with the LinkedIn post (commented/shared/reacted, including ‘likes’), which the Panel considered could further disseminate the content in the UK.
The Panel considered the post and linked article within scope of the ABPI Code due to UK nexus (AstraZeneca global located in the UK and UK employee engagement).

⚖️

⌄

Final outcome (Appeal Board): No breach of the Code.
The Appeal Board agreed the materials were within scope of the Code, but concluded that in the particular circumstances they were not promotional and did not promote an unlicensed medicine.
The appeal by AstraZeneca was successful; the Panel’s breaches (Clause 9.1 and Clause 2) were overturned.

🔒

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