GSK LinkedIn posts about Phase 3 RSV vaccine candidate and Covid-19 antibody trial: no breach (AUTH/3442/12/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3442/12/20
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited
Complainant	Concerned health professional
Channel	LinkedIn (GSK corporate account)
Materials	Two LinkedIn posts: (1) Phase 3 RSV candidate vaccine trial announcement (maternal immunisation); (2) NIH ACTIV Phase 3 Covid-19 antibody treatment trial announcement with link to GSK “Our response to CoViD-19” page
Main allegation	Promotion to the public of unlicensed/new products before licence; alleged ongoing decision to promote to the public
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	Clause(s) 2, 9.1, 26.1
Panel decision	No breach
Key reasoning	Not necessarily unacceptable to refer generally to pipeline/pandemic work; assessed language/context/audience/overall impression; both items not classified as prescription only medicines at time of posting (Clause 26.1 not engaged on that narrow technical point); posts/link content not considered promotional on evidence available
Complaint received	19 December 2020
Case completed	2 September 2021
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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 health professional complained about two GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited posts on the GSK corporate LinkedIn account (over 2.5m followers at the time; later over 2.8m, including 225,000+ from the UK).
Post 1 announced the start of a Phase 3 clinical trial for an RSV candidate vaccine for maternal immunisation, with wording including “if successful” and “could help protect babies”. It included an executive quote about “Advancing our portfolio of RSV vaccine candidates…”
GSK stated the RSV post was an “enhanced post” supported by a paid campaign targeted to people aged 25+ with interests such as science/technology/investors/science news, to convert them to followers (i.e., not restricted to existing followers).
Post 2 announced an NIH ACTIV Phase 3 trial beginning with GSK and Vir Biotechnology’s Covid-19 antibody treatment in hospitalised adults, tagged for investors/media, and linked to GSK’s corporate “Our response to CoViD-19” webpage.
The complainant alleged the posts amounted to promotion to the public of new/unlicensed products and suggested it was an ongoing decision rather than an isolated error.
The PMCPA asked GSK to consider Clauses 2, 9.1 and 26.1 of the Code.
GSK responded that both posts were corporate reputation communications intended to provide factual updates and transparency about research activity; both were reviewed pre-publication by experienced ABPI signatories (GMC-registered physicians).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
No breach of Clause 26.1 (on the narrow technical point that the RSV candidate vaccine and the Covid-19 antibody treatment were not classified as prescription only medicines at the time of posting).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (the Panel did not consider the posts promoted unlicensed medicines to the public as alleged).
No breach of Clause 2 (given the above findings).

🔒

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