AUTH/3382/9/20: Complainant v Chugai — Granocyte showreel YouTube video (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3382/9/20
Company	Chugai Pharma UK Limited
Product	Granocyte (lenograstim)
Material	Granocyte showreel YouTube video (24 seconds; music only; screenshots of draft sales aid)
Allegations	Promotion of a POM to the public; missing prescribing information; not recertified every two years; high standards
Platform / access	YouTube “unlisted” link; unexpectedly indexed by Google
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	4.1, 9.1, 14.5, 26.1
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 4.1, 9.1, 14.5, 26.1
Complaint received	10 September 2020
Case completed	29 March 2021
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 about a short YouTube video (dated 2014; uploaded 2015) that appeared to promote Granocyte (lenograstim), a prescription-only medicine.
The complainant alleged it had been left publicly available for ~5 years, had not been recertified every two years, and was missing prescribing information.
Chugai said the video was created and uploaded by a former medical communications agency after the relationship ended, as a showreel to demonstrate the agency’s capabilities to potential clients.
The video (24 seconds, music only) showed screenshots of a draft Granocyte sales aid; product claims were visible.
The agency said the YouTube upload was set as an unlisted link intended to be shared only with named individuals; it could not be found via standard YouTube search.
The video became discoverable because it was unexpectedly indexed by Google (e.g., searching “Granocyte” and selecting Google’s “videos” results).
After the complaint, the agency removed the video and associated page content and Google links.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel considered the video to be an agency showreel, not promotional material being used by Chugai, and therefore not material covered by the Code in the way alleged.
The Panel accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that the video was not intended for general access and became searchable due to Google indexing.

🔒

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