GSK Duac banner ad on Pulse Today: complaint about missing prescribing information (AUTH/3367/7/20) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3367/7/20
Company	GlaxoSmithKline
Complainant	Concerned UK health professional
Product	Duac 5% (benzoyl peroxide, clindamycin phosphate)
Indication (as stated)	Topical treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris
Material / placement	Online banner advertisement on Pulse Today
Ad reference	PM-GB-CBP-BNNR-200005
Date of preparation (ad)	June 2020
Core issue	Alleged inability to access prescribing information from a static banner display
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	24 July 2020
Case completed	17 September 2020
Appeal	No appeal
Decision	No breach
Clauses considered (as listed on case page)	4.1, 4.6, 4.9, 9.1

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 complainant (a concerned UK health professional) said they could not access prescribing information (PI) for Duac 5% from an online advertisement on Pulse Today (ref PM-GB-CBP-BNNR-200005).
The complainant said the ad appeared static for several minutes, did not change, and did not provide PI; clicking did not provide a “one click” link to PI.
GSK said the material was a two-frame banner: frame 1 contained brand/generic name plus a clearly labelled link to PI and an adverse event (AE) reporting statement; frame 2 contained the job number/date and linked to the Duac webpage when clicked.
GSK said the two frames displayed for 15 seconds in total; frame 1 displayed for at least 6.5 seconds, triggered when the viewer approached the ad area, to allow time to read and click the PI link.
The Panel noted the complainant provided an image of only the second frame and that it appeared to have stayed on screen; the Panel could not determine why the ad did not display/function correctly on the complainant’s screen or why clicking did not take them to the Duac site as intended.
The Panel noted that the Duac website homepage (where users would be directed) included a link to Duac prescribing information, and the PI included AE reporting information.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel considered it was unfortunate the ad did not display/function correctly for the complainant, but it was impossible to determine why.
The Panel concluded that, despite the complainant’s difficulties, high standards had been maintained.

🔒

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