GSK LinkedIn post about COVID-19 vaccine collaboration (Medicago/Covifenz): no breach after appeal (AUTH/3524/6/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3524/6/21
Parties	Complainant/Director v GlaxoSmithKline
Complaint	Alleged use of LinkedIn to promote a medicine (COVID-19 vaccine collaboration post)
Platform	LinkedIn (GSK global corporate account)
Linked content	GSK corporate webpage “Our response to CoViD-19” and a PDF “Our COVID-19 solutions key facts” (as described in the report)
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	2, 3.1, 9.1, 26.1, 29
Panel decision	Breach of 3.1, 9.1 and 2 (appealed); no breach of 26.1 and 29
Appeal outcome	No breach of 3.1, 9.1 and 2; consequently no breaches of the Code
Key appeal point	The vaccine was not considered a GSK medicine (GSK had no commercialisation rights and was not MAH; adjuvant supplied only for clinical trials)
Complaint received	22 June 2021
Case completed	15 September 2022

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 UK health professional complained about a post on the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) global LinkedIn account (over 2.8m followers; over 227,000 from the UK).
The post stated there were “positive interim results from a Phase 2 study” for an adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine candidate in collaboration with Medicago and included a senior executive quote referring to a “very strong immune response” and a “refrigerator-stable vaccine candidate”.
The post linked to GSK’s corporate webpage “Our response to CoViD-19”, which included general information about adjuvants and described the Medicago collaboration (including statements such as “late-stage trials” and “if successful, we aim to make the vaccine available, in the first half of 2021”).
The complainant alleged GSK was using a public platform to promote a product before it was licensed and asked PMCPA to consider a previous LinkedIn-related case (AUTH/3130/12/18) and an alleged breach of undertaking (handled in the name of the Director for that aspect).
GSK said the post was corporate/reputational, factual, reviewed by an experienced signatory, and that the linked page was informational.
On appeal, GSK provided additional detail: it supplied only clinical-trial volumes of its pandemic adjuvant to Medicago, had no commercialisation rights for Covifenz, and was not the marketing authorisation holder; Medicago would procure adjuvant for production via the Canadian government.

⚖️

⌄

Final outcome (Appeal Board): No breach of the Code.
The Appeal Board did not consider the vaccine referenced to be a GSK medicine; therefore GSK could not be seen to be promoting its medicine pre-licence under the Code definition of “promotion”.
The Appeal Board consequently ruled no breach of Clauses 3.1, 9.1 and 2.
The Panel had also ruled no breach of Clause 26.1 (on the narrow technical point that the vaccine candidate was not yet classified as a prescription only medicine at the time) and no breach of Clause 29 (no breach of undertaking alleged from the earlier case).

🔒

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