Roche LinkedIn ‘Experience’ sections: references to POMs ruled not promotional (No breach) | AUTH/3584/11/21

Finding: No breach of the ABPI Code (2021). The Panel’s decision was upheld on appeal by the complainant.

What happened

• A complainant (self-described health professional) challenged the use of LinkedIn by four senior Roche employees.
• The complaint focused on text in the employees’ LinkedIn “Experience” sections that referenced prescription-only medicines (POMs) and, in one case, sales/market statements (e.g., “£25 million sales achieved…”, “20% share…”, “Best IV launch in MS in UK market”).
• The complainant alleged the content was promotional and lacked mandatory requirements (e.g., prescribing information, adverse event reporting, black triangle where applicable, date of creation, and certification), and that LinkedIn being public meant POMs were advertised to the public.
• Roche refuted the allegations and argued the “Experience” section functioned as a CV-style summary, distinct from proactive dissemination via posts/likes/shares in the “Activity” section.

Outcome

• The Panel found the complainant had not established that the “Experience” section content amounted to advertising POMs to the public.
• The Panel found the “Experience” section content did not constitute promotion to health professionals; therefore, the mandatory promotional requirements and certification requirements did not apply.
• No breach was ruled for all clauses cited, and this was upheld by the Appeal Board.
• The Panel and Appeal Board nevertheless expressed concern about whether it was appropriate to mention medicines/indications in a public online profile rather than referring only to therapy area, and emphasised the need for clear social media policies and training.

Clauses considered

• Clause 2
• Clause 5.1
• Clause 8.1
• Clause 12.1
• Clause 12.3
• Clause 12.6
• Clause 12.8
• Clause 12.9
• Clause 12.10
• Clause 26.1
• Clause 26.2

Sanctions

• None (No breach case).
• Additional sanctions: Not stated.

ABPI signatory lens

Why this matters

• LinkedIn is a hybrid space: personal profiles can still create compliance risk when they overlap with company interests and include medicine references.
• The decision draws a practical distinction between CV-style “Experience” content and proactive dissemination (posts, likes, shares, comments) that can more readily trigger Code application.
• Even where a case is “no breach”, regulators expect companies to provide clear, unambiguous employee guidance and regular training on social media use.

Where teams slip up

• Assuming “personal account” means “outside the Code” (it can still be in-scope depending on content/distribution).
• Including product names + indications and especially performance/sales superlatives in public-facing profile sections.
• Policies that focus only on posts/likes/shares but do not address profile sections (e.g., “Experience”, “About”).

Control that would have prevented it

• A social media SOP that explicitly covers profile content (Experience/About/Featured), not just activity.
• Mandatory periodic attestations (e.g., annual) requiring employees to confirm their public profiles contain no product/claim language beyond permitted descriptors (e.g., therapy area only).
• Targeted training for senior commercial staff on how “career achievements” can be interpreted as promotional claims when tied to a medicine.

What I’d check in an audit

• Whether the company social media policy explicitly addresses LinkedIn profile sections (Experience/About/Headline/Featured) and provides examples of acceptable vs unacceptable wording.
• Evidence of regular training and completion rates for employees in customer-facing/commercial roles.
• Whether there is a monitoring or spot-check process for public-facing employee profiles (risk-based sampling, seniority/role-based).
• Whether guidance prohibits or limits: product names, indications, comparatives/superlatives, sales/market share claims in personal profiles.
• Escalation routes for employees to get quick compliance advice on profile wording (e.g., “ask compliance” mailbox).

What the sanctions tell you

• No sanctions were applied because the material was found not to be promotion/advertising in the context assessed.
• However, the commentary signals an expectation that companies should still treat LinkedIn as a managed compliance risk, especially where profiles are public.

3 questions to ask your team this week

• Do any of our employees’ LinkedIn profiles mention product names, indications, launch claims, sales figures, market share, or “best” statements in the Experience/About sections?
• Does our social media policy clearly distinguish between profile content and activity (posting/liking/sharing/commenting), and does it give practical examples?
• If a regulator reviewed our approach tomorrow, could we evidence training, guidance, and a risk-based monitoring process for employee social media presence?

Key facts

Source: PMCPA case page | Case report (PDF)

Download the full case report (PDF)

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory