AUTH/3407/10/20: Pharmasure breached undertaking by leaving Meriofert superiority-style claims on UK website

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3407/10/20
Parties	Ferring/Director v Pharmasure
Product	Meriofert (menotrophin); comparator referenced: Menopur (menotrophin for injection)
Issue	Breach of undertaking—similar promotional claims remained on UK website after undertaking in AUTH/3227/7/19
Key website heading	“What is the difference between Meriofert and Menopur (menotrophin)?”
Examples of claims at issue	More mature oocytes than Menopur; shorter stimulation/less gonadotrophin; LH activity predominantly from placental hCG vs pituitary hCG; higher purity than Menopur
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	26 October 2020
Case completed	19 February 2021
Breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 29
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
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

📋

⌄

Ferring alleged Pharmasure breached an undertaking given in Case AUTH/3227/7/19 by continuing to display promotional claims for Meriofert (menotrophin) on its UK website.
Ferring monitored the website after the June 2020 undertaking and provided 17 screenshots (23 June–26 October 2020) showing the claims remained unchanged.
The website section was headed: “What is the difference between Meriofert and Menopur (menotrophin)?” and included claims implying superiority (more mature oocytes, shorter stimulation, less gonadotrophin) and product-composition/purity comparisons (placental vs pituitary hCG; higher purity).
Pharmasure said it recalled/withdrew sales materials after the earlier ruling but missed the website content; it removed the claims within minutes of receiving the new complaint and said the breach was unintentional.
The Panel considered the website claims were sufficiently similar to those previously ruled misleading/not substantiable and were covered by the earlier undertaking to cease using such claims forthwith.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 29 ruled (failure to comply with an undertaking).
Breach of Clause 2 ruled (bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the industry); noted as a sign of particular censure.
No appeal.

🔒

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