Stallergenes Greer: LinkedIn post naming POM brands ruled promotion to the public (AUTH/3570/10/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3570/10/21
Parties	Health professional v Stallergenes Greer
Issue	LinkedIn post naming POM brands and indication (house dust mite respiratory allergy / allergen immunotherapy tablet)
Platform	LinkedIn (corporate account shown as based in London, UK)
Post content (quoted)	Referenced decentralised registration outcome; listed countries granting MAs; stated tablet marketed under brand names “Actair, Aitmyte or Orlymyte depending on the country”.
UK MA status	Marketing authorisations for different dosages granted 25 June 2021 (held by Stallergenes SAS)
Commercialised in UK at the time	No (as of 14 June 2022, per company)
Approx. posting window	Between August and October 2021 (exact date unclear)
Complaint received	19 October 2021
Case completed	21 June 2022
Applicable Code	2021
Breach clauses	Clause 26.1; Clause 5.1
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 5.1 (repetition allegation)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
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 health professional complained about a Stallergenes Greer corporate LinkedIn post which referenced a sublingual house dust mite allergen immunotherapy tablet and listed brand names used in different countries (Actair, Aitmyte, Orlymyte).
The complainant alleged the post amounted to prohibited advertising of a named prescription only medicine (POM) to the public and said this was “not for the first time”.
The post stated that marketing authorisations had been granted in multiple European countries and included a lifestyle image (a man lying on a carpet listening to music).
Stallergenes Greer argued the post was factual, balanced corporate communication and not intended to encourage the public to request prescribing.
Stallergenes Greer said the product was not yet commercialised in the UK, but confirmed UK marketing authorisations for different dosages were granted on 25 June 2021 (held by Stallergenes SAS).
The corporate LinkedIn account was shown as based in London, UK; the Panel considered the post within the scope of the Code.
The exact posting date was unclear, but evidence suggested it was posted between August and October 2021 (after UK marketing authorisation).

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: the proactive dissemination of a post containing brand names and an indication for a POM to an audience including non-HCPs constituted promotion of a prescription only medicine to the public.
Breach ruled: high standards were not maintained.
No breach ruled: the complainant did not establish that this activity was repeatedly done by the company.
No breach ruled: Clause 2 (particular censure) was not considered warranted on the facts.
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