AUTH/3476/2/21: Anonymous (contactable) v Leo Pharma – LinkedIn profile allegations (No breach after appeal) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3476/2/21
Parties	Anonymous, contactable complainant v Leo Pharma
Issue	Alleged Code breaches arising from a Leo employee’s LinkedIn profile (qualification claim; references to Innohep and Picato; “switch” wording; “safe” wording; alleged promotion to public/HCPs; alleged lack of prescribing information/certification)
Medicines mentioned	Innohep; Picato (ingenol mebutate)
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	9 February 2021
Case completed	18 November 2021
Panel outcome	Initially ruled some breaches (later appealed)
Appeal outcome	Appeal successful; all breaches overturned; no breach of the Code
Additional 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 contactable complainant challenged statements on a named Leo Pharma medical department employee’s publicly viewable LinkedIn profile (open privacy settings alleged), including claimed qualifications and descriptions of past roles/achievements.
The complainant alleged the profile content amounted to promotion of prescription-only medicines (notably Innohep) to the public and to health professionals, without prescribing information and without certification.
The complainant also alleged the profile implied prohibited “switch services” ("Gained a complete switch to Innohep…"), off-licence promotion/training, and inappropriate use of the word “safe”.
Statements about Picato (ingenol mebutate) and actinic keratosis were also alleged to be promotional and non-compliant.
Leo responded that the LinkedIn content was essentially an online CV (copied from the employee’s CV), intended for recruitment, and not promotional; Leo also provided evidence the employee’s qualification was authentic.
The Panel initially ruled some breaches (notably around Innohep references and the word “safe”), but Leo appealed.
The Appeal Board distinguished between LinkedIn “Activity” (posts/shares) and the “Experience” section (CV-style content requiring active searching/clicks), and overturned all breaches.

⚖️

⌄

Final decision: No breach of the Code (Appeal Board upheld Leo’s appeal and overturned the Panel’s breach rulings).
The Appeal Board stated it was uncomfortable with some of the language used and asked that Leo be advised of its concerns, but it did not find Code breaches.

🔒

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