GSK Duac banner ad on Pulse Today: complaint about missing prescribing information (AUTH/3367/7/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	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	Online banner advertisement on Pulse Today (ref PM-GB-CBP-BNNR-200005)
Main issue alleged	Could not access prescribing information; ad appeared static and did not provide PI; high standards not maintained
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered (as listed on case page)	4.1, 4.6, 4.9, 9.1
Panel decision	No breach
Complaint received	24 July 2020
Case completed	17 September 2020
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

📋

⌄

A UK health professional complained they could not access prescribing information (PI) for Duac 5% (benzoyl peroxide, clindamycin phosphate) 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 included a prominent “Click here for prescribing information” link plus an adverse event (AE) reporting statement; frame 2 included the job number/date and linked through to the Duac webpage.
GSK said the animation was triggered when a viewer reached a specific page area so the first frame would be visible for at least 6.5 seconds (total display 15 seconds).
The Panel noted the complainant had only captured the second frame and it was unclear why it displayed as static or why click-through did not work on the complainant’s screen.
The Panel noted that the Duac website homepage (the intended click-through destination) included a link to Duac prescribing information and that AE reporting information was included at the bottom of the PI.

⚖️

⌄

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 only the second frame was seen.
High standards were considered to have 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