AUTH/3371/8/20: Complainant v Pfizer — ‘Hidden’ PfizerPro page for Sayana-Press and missing prescribing information (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3371/8/20
Company	Pfizer Limited
Complainant	Concerned UK health professional (as described)
Product	Sayana-Press (medroxyprogesterone acetate suspension for injection)
Issue	Google access to a “hidden” Useful Resources list page without prescribing information
Channel	Company website (PfizerPro) / search engine indexing
Clauses considered	Clause 4.1; Clause 9.1
Ruling	No breach of Clause 4.1; No breach of Clause 9.1
Corrective actions noted	Limited Useful Resources tile to four links; deleted hidden list pages in backend; re-indexed site on Google to remove historical links
Complaint received	12 August 2020
Case completed	29 March 2021
Applicable Code year	2019
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 complainant (a concerned UK health professional) provided a screenshot of a PfizerPro page about Sayana-Press (medroxyprogesterone acetate suspension for injection) showing two “Useful Resources” links (“Order materials” and “Sayana-Press Patient website”).
The complainant alleged there was no link to prescribing information on that page.
Pfizer explained the Sayana-Press PfizerPro microsite had four pages and each page included prescribing information at the bottom (cost, legal category, and a link to the SPC).
Pfizer said the page in the screenshot was a system-generated “hidden list page” for the Useful Resources tile, created in case more than four links were added and a “See All” page was needed.
Because there were only two links, the “See All” option was not shown and the hidden list page was not accessible from within the microsite—however, Google could surface it directly in search results.
All microsite pages sat behind a self-validation pop-up requiring visitors to confirm health professional status; non-confirming visitors were redirected to Pfizer.co.uk.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 4.1.
No breach of Clause 9.1.
The Panel noted concern that content not appearing to meet Code requirements could be accessed via Google, but accepted it was a hidden page not intended for UK health professionals.

🔒

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