GSK breach of undertaking found after repeat digital banner legibility failures (AUTH/3480/3/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3480/3/21
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited
Complainant	Concerned healthcare professional (as described)
Issue	Alleged breach of undertaking linked to repeat digital advertising issues (legibility/placement of non-proprietary name) across historic cases
Complaint received	1 March 2021
Case completed	4 November 2021
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1; Clause 29
No breach clauses	Clause 2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Related cases referenced	AUTH/2787/8/15; AUTH/3148/1/19; AUTH/3328/4/20; AUTH/3341/5/20

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 complainant (self-described concerned healthcare professional) cited a third-party LinkedIn post reviewing four historic GSK cases (AUTH/2787/8/15, AUTH/3148/1/19, AUTH/3328/4/20, AUTH/3341/5/20) involving illegibility/placement of non-proprietary names in digital banner advertising.
The complainant alleged GSK had recurrently breached similar clauses on similar materials and therefore breached an earlier undertaking (Clause 29).
The Authority asked GSK to consider Clauses 2, 9.1 and 29.
GSK argued there was no new evidence and that repeated breach of the same clause does not automatically mean breach of an undertaking; each case must be assessed on its facts.
The Panel assessed whether later cases were “closely similar” to the original undertaking in AUTH/2787/8/15 and examined root causes and remedial actions.
The Panel found AUTH/3148/1/19 was not closely similar (notably due to third-party agency involvement) and so did not breach the earlier undertaking.
The Panel found similarities between AUTH/3328/4/20 and AUTH/3341/5/20 and the original case: the later breaches arose because the signatory failed to check the HTML format on the staging site (as required by SOP) in addition to the final PDF, leading to blurry/illegible generic name in the live HTML.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 29 was ruled (breach of undertaking) in relation to the Avamys cases being sufficiently similar to the earlier undertaking.
Breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled because failing to comply with an undertaking meant high standards were not maintained.
No breach of Clause 2 was ruled; the Panel considered the breach-of-undertaking concerns were adequately addressed by the Clause 9.1 breach in the circumstances.
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