AstraZeneca: LinkedIn post and ‘likes’ held to promote unlicensed Covid-19 vaccine (AUTH/3430/11/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3430/11/20
Company	AstraZeneca
Issue	Promotion of unlicensed Covid-19 vaccine (AZD1222) on LinkedIn via a senior employee post and UK employee ‘likes’ amplifying reach
Channel	LinkedIn (personal account) linking to global corporate press release
Complainant	Concerned UK health professional
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	24 November 2020
Case completed	14 December 2021
Breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 3.1; Clause 9.1
No breach clauses	Clause 26.1; Clause 29
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: 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

📋

⌄

A concerned UK health professional complained about a named AstraZeneca employee’s LinkedIn post about a Covid-19 vaccine programme, stating it “offers new hope to nations around the world”.
The post included hashtags (eg #vaccines, #astrazeneca, #covidinnovation, #proudemployee) and linked to a global AstraZeneca press release titled “AZD1222 vaccine met primary efficacy endpoint in preventing COVID-19”.
AstraZeneca submitted the poster was a US-based global employee posting on a personal account under US social media guidance and not targeting the UK.
Nine UK-based AstraZeneca employees had ‘liked’ the post; the Panel considered this likely proactively disseminated the content to their UK connections.
The linked press release referenced UK clinical trials and contained prominent efficacy/safety statements and quotes about effectiveness and impact “on approval”.
The Panel considered linking a press release on social media (expecting wider readership) differed from merely hosting it in a media section or providing it to press.
The Panel noted AstraZeneca did not provide any UK-specific social media guidance to the Panel and made no submission in that regard.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 3.1 (promotion of an unlicensed medicine).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
Breach of Clause 2 (bringing discredit upon and reducing confidence in the industry).
No breach of Clause 26.1 on a narrow technical point because AZD1222 was not classified as a prescription only medicine at the time.
No breach of Clause 29 (no breach of undertakings from AUTH/3011/1/18 and AUTH/3248/9/19, as the matters were different).
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