Allergan publicly reprimanded after employees’ LinkedIn ‘likes’ were ruled promotion of Botox to the public

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3431/11/20
Company	Allergan Limited
Product	Botox (botulinum toxin type A) (prescription only medicine)
Main channels	LinkedIn; Instagram
Core issue	Employees’ social media engagement (especially LinkedIn ‘likes’) treated as proactive dissemination promoting a POM to the public; trivialising terminology (“Brotox”).
Complaint received	20 November 2020
Case completed	29 October 2021
Applicable Code year	2019
No breach clauses	Clause(s) 2, 9.1, 26.1, 29 (in relation to the alleged breach of undertaking)
Breach clauses	Clause(s) 2, 9.1, 26.1
Appeal	Respondent appeal; Appeal Board upheld all but one of the Panel’s Clause 26.1 breach rulings (Instagram tagging point overturned on chronology/evidence).
Sanctions	Advertisement; Public reprimand; Undertaking received

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 doctor practising in aesthetics complained that Allergan employees had ‘liked’, commented on, and shared third-party social media posts (LinkedIn and Instagram) that referenced Botox (a prescription only medicine).
Examples included LinkedIn posts by a GP/clinic CEO described as an “Allergan mentee”, featuring terms like “Brotox” and hashtags such as #botox and #Brotox, and posts encouraging appointment booking.
Further LinkedIn ‘likes’ included posts with #Botox about a clinic birthday and awards finalist status.
A separate LinkedIn ‘like’ related to a competitor botulinum toxin (Nabota) and a shared post about CoolSculpting/CoolTone where “Botox” appeared small in the background of an exhibition stand image.
Instagram activity included an Allergan employee tagging a clinician/clinic account; the clinician’s account contained a post referencing Botox and multiple Botox hashtags. The Panel initially found this to be promotion to the public via directing users to that account; this point was later overturned on appeal due to insufficient evidence about chronology.
The complainant also alleged breach of an undertaking given by Allergan in a previous case (AUTH/3291/12/19). The Panel found the activity complained of pre-dated the undertaking (16 March 2020) and therefore did not breach it.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of undertaking: No breach of Clause 29 (and therefore no breach of Clauses 2 and 9.1 in relation to the undertaking allegation).
Breaches upheld on appeal for repeated promotion of Botox to the public via employees’ LinkedIn ‘likes’ of third-party posts containing “Botox”, “Brotox” and #Botox hashtags: Clause 26.1.
High standards: Breach of Clause 9.1 upheld (including endorsement of the term “Brotox”, considered to trivialise a POM).
Industry discredit: Breach of Clause 2 upheld due to repeated promotion of a POM to the public and trivialisation concerns; Appeal Board noted social media is often used by young people.
One point overturned on appeal: The Panel’s breach finding relating to an employee’s Instagram tag linking to a clinician’s account was overturned (no breach of Clause 26.1) due to insufficient evidence that the clinician’s promotional Botox content was present at the time the employee linked/tagged.

🔒

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