Novo Nordisk webinar invite: sponsorship disclosure not prominent at the outset (AUTH/3576/11/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3576/11/21
Company	Novo Nordisk
Complainant	Contactable complainant (described him/herself as a health professional)
Issue	Webinar invitation/registration materials did not make Novo Nordisk’s role sufficiently clear at the outset; allegation of disguised promotion not established
Activity	Email invitation via a named independent organisation + webinar registration page
Webinar topic/date	“The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Type 2 Diabetes – How Do We Manage the Backlog?”; 18 November 2021
Applicable Code	2021
Complaint received	4 November 2021
Case completed	2 September 2022
Appeal	No appeal
Breaches	Clauses 5.1, 5.5, 10.9
No breach	Clause 3.6
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

📋

⌄

A health professional complained about an email invitation advertising a webinar on type 2 diabetes and managing the post-COVID backlog.
The webinar was organised and fully funded by Novo Nordisk; Novo Nordisk contracted the two speakers, paid their honoraria, and briefed them on presentation content.
The invitation email appeared to come from an employee of a named independent organisation and featured a large, prominent independent organisation logo at the top.
The statement “This meeting has been organised and fully funded by Novo Nordisk” appeared only after scrolling past meeting details and in a smaller font than the rest of the email.
The “Register here” link led to a registration page; versions provided by the complainant and Novo Nordisk differed (complainant’s version showed prominent independent organisation branding at the top; Novo Nordisk’s appeared cropped).
On the registration page, the Novo Nordisk funding/organisation declaration appeared in small font towards the bottom left, below key messages and speaker details.
The complainant also alleged the event was disguised promotion (i.e., could “trick” HCPs into signing up without realising it was pharma-organised).

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.5 (role/involvement of the pharmaceutical company not clearly indicated at the outset).
Breach of Clause 10.9 (sponsorship disclosure not sufficiently prominent at the outset in meeting materials).
No breach of Clause 3.6 (disguised promotion not established by the complainant; webinar content not available to the Panel).
Breach of Clause 5.1 (failure to maintain high standards, given Novo Nordisk reviewed the email before it was sent but did not request changes to disclosure prominence).
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