AbbVie: LinkedIn ‘like’ ruled promotion of unlicensed Durysta (AUTH/3493/3/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3493/3/21
Company	AbbVie Limited
Product	Durysta (sustained release bimatoprost implant)
Channel	LinkedIn (employee ‘liked’ a third-party post)
Main issue	Promotion of an unlicensed medicine / pre-authorisation promotion via social media engagement
Complainant	Contactable complainant
Complaint received	22 March 2021
Case completed	10 January 2022
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 3.1; Clause 9.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; 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 complainant provided screenshots alleging a named senior UK employee of AbbVie had promoted Durysta (sustained release bimatoprost implant) on LinkedIn.
The employee ‘liked’ a LinkedIn post by a US eye surgeon celebrating first use of Durysta after FDA approval.
The post named Durysta, referenced its indication (glaucoma/eye pressure) and included promotional claims (eg “no pain”, “no restrictions”, “new era for our patients”).
AbbVie said the individual was employed by Allergan at the time (during integration following AbbVie’s acquisition of Allergan) but functionally reporting into AbbVie; AbbVie responded.
AbbVie stated there was no pending UK/EU marketing authorisation application at the time of its response; the Panel still considered Durysta unlicensed in the UK.
The Panel considered that ‘liking’ increases the likelihood content is shown to one’s connections (ie proactive dissemination) and that the employee had 500+ connections likely including HCPs/decision makers and members of the public, predominantly in the UK.
The Panel noted AbbVie’s policy warned against endorsing third-party statements, but did not clearly address ‘liking’ and its dissemination effect.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 3.1 ruled (promotion of a medicine prior to the grant of its marketing authorisation).
Breach of Clause 9.1 ruled (high standards not maintained).
Breach of Clause 2 ruled (bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry).
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