AUTH/3397/10/20: Anonymous complainant v Leo (PharmaBoardroom executive interviews) — No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3397/10/20
Parties	Anonymous contactable complainant v Leo
Topic	Online interviews with Leo staff published on pharmaboardroom.com
Complaint received	06 October 2020
Case completed	22 October 2021
Applicable Code	2012 Code Second Edition
Result	No breach
Clauses considered	1.8, 2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 9.1, 9.10, 14.1, 16.1, 24.1, 22.1 and 22.5
Key reasoning (high level)	Although one interview was considered within scope due to UK references/context, publication on a global business-focused platform aimed at senior pharma executives meant it was not advertising a POM to UK health professionals, other relevant decision makers, or the public; no evidence of sponsorship; allegations about lack of Code conversance not proven.
Appeal outcome	Appeal unsuccessful; Appeal Board noted carelessness in relying on recollection for employment dates but upheld no breach of Clauses 1.8, 9.1 and 2.

Download the full case report (PDF)

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

📋

What happened

⌄

An anonymous, contactable complainant challenged a number of interviews with senior Leo Pharma executives published on pharmaboardroom.com over several years.
The complainant said the site was UK-registered/based in London with UK readership (including health professionals) and alleged the interviews contained product references/claims and were not Code-compliant.
Allegations included: lack of certification, lack of UK internet compliance, lack of briefing/training on the Code, potential undisclosed sponsorship, and cumulative concerns about standards/discredit.
Leo said the interviews were solicited by Focus Reports Limited (owner of Pharma Boardroom) for country-focused business/strategy reports aimed at senior life-sciences executives globally; Leo said there was no payment/sponsorship for interviews and Leo had no control over final publication beyond transcript accuracy checks.
The Panel first considered whether the interviews were within the scope of the UK Code; it found the content was potentially within scope given UK incorporation/server, then assessed the specific interview considered in detail (Ireland executive; interview dated 7 December 2012) under the 2012 Code Second Edition.
For ten other points/interviews, the Panel ruled they were not within scope; an independent referee upheld that they were not within scope (details not included in the report).
On appeal, the complainant argued Leo had provided incorrect information about when the interviewee’s UK role began; Leo later checked records and confirmed part-time work for Leo Pharma UK from July 2012.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel ruled no breach of the cited clauses for the interview it considered within scope (assessed under the 2012 Code Second Edition).
The Appeal Board found Leo had been careless in relying on recollection rather than employment records for a factual point, but this did not amount to a breach; it upheld no breach of Clauses 1.8, 9.1 and 2.
For ten other points, the Panel found the matters were not within scope; an independent referee agreed.

🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

AUTH/3397/10/20: Anonymous complainant v Leo (PharmaBoardroom executive interviews) — No breach

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown