Daiichi-Sankyo: draft corporate webpage accidentally went live and promoted POMs to the public (breach of undertaking)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3502/4/21
Company	Daiichi-Sankyo
Medicines	Olmesartan; Prasugrel; Edoxaban
Channel	Corporate website page (search-accessible URL: /boxes-for-footer-content)
Main issue	Publicly accessible promotional content for POMs; missing certification and prescribing information; superlative claim; breach of prior undertaking
Complainant	Anonymous (could not be contacted using details provided)
Complaint received	10 April 2021
Case completed	6 December 2021
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	Clause 4.1; Clause 7.10; Clause 9.1; Clause 14.1; Clause 26.1; Clause 26.2; Clause 28.1; Clause 28.3; Clause 29
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 26.3
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous complainant alleged Daiichi-Sankyo promoted three prescription-only medicines (olmesartan, prasugrel and edoxaban) to the public via a UK corporate website page.
The page ("/boxes-for-footer-content") included product names plus descriptions of indications/mechanism and a superlative claim ("excellent" efficacy for olmesartan).
Daiichi-Sankyo said the content was draft material created by Daiichi-Sankyo Europe Corporate Communications, stored in the website wireframe, and never intended for external publication on the UK site.
A quality control error meant the page status was incorrectly set to “live” and it became accessible via certain search terms on the UK website (eg product/brand names), though not via normal navigation.
The page had not been reviewed/certified by a signatory and did not include prescribing information.
The complainant alleged this also breached an undertaking given in an earlier case (AUTH/3107/10/18) about restricting access to POM promotional content on the corporate website.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the webpage was promotional and could be seen by a broad audience including members of the public.
The Panel considered the content could encourage members of the public to ask a health professional to prescribe a specific POM.
Breach rulings were made for promotion to the public, lack of audience restriction/segregation on the website, lack of certification, missing prescribing information, use of a superlative, failure to maintain high standards, and breach of undertaking.
No breach was ruled for Clause 26.3 (not aimed at patients taking the medicine) and no breach for Clause 2 (particular censure not warranted on balance).
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