Bristol-Myers Squibb: UK employee ‘liked’ US LinkedIn post linking to Opdivo/Yervoy FDA approval (public promotion and missing PI)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3494/3/21
Company	Bristol-Myers Squibb
Products	Opdivo (nivolumab); Yervoy (ipilimumab)
Channel	LinkedIn (employee ‘like’), linking to Twitter and a US corporate press release
Core issue	‘Like’ deemed proactive dissemination; promotion to public and HCPs; missing prescribing information
Complaint received	22 March 2021
Case completed	17 January 2022
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	4.1; 9.1; 26.1
No breach clauses	2
Sanctions	Undertaking received
Appeal	No appeal

Download the full case report (PDF)

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

📋

What happened

⌄

An anonymous, contactable complainant alleged a senior named Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) UK employee promoted Opdivo (nivolumab) and Yervoy (ipilimumab) on LinkedIn by ‘liking’ a post from a senior US BMS employee.
The US LinkedIn post said: “Incredibly proud and humbled… led to this approval by the FDA, bringing a new treatment option to patients suffering with 1L mNSCLC #BMS #BmsEmployee #NSCLC #cancer” and linked to a BMS US corporate Twitter post.
The Twitter post stated: “#MEDIA: #FDA approves chemo-free first-line treatment for certain patients with advanced #lungcancer” and linked to a US corporate press release.
The press release (news.bms.com) was titled: “U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approves Opdivo® (nivolumab) + Yervoy® (ipilimumab) as First-Line Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Whose Tumors Express PD-L1≥1%” and was the point where Opdivo and Yervoy were named.
The Panel considered that ‘liking’ the post would, on the balance of probabilities, proactively disseminate the post and associated links to the UK employee’s LinkedIn connections (likely including UK health professionals and members of the public), bringing it within scope of the UK Code.
BMS argued the ‘like’ was a personal, colleague-to-colleague interaction; product names were “three clicks” away; the content was US-focused (#FDA, #MEDIA) and not intended for UK audiences; and the employee did not comment/share/repost.
The Panel noted it is possible for material to be promotional without naming a product.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

Breach of Clause 26.1 (promotion of prescription only medicines to the public).
Breach of Clause 4.1 (promotion to health professionals without required prescribing information).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
No breach of Clause 2 (Panel said the circumstances did not warrant the particular censure of Clause 2).
No appeal.

🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown