AstraZeneca: LinkedIn ‘like’ promoted unlicensed Evusheld (Clause 5.1 breach upheld on appeal)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3597/1/22
Company	AstraZeneca
Complainant	Contactable complainant (concerned UK health professional)
Code year	2021
Channels	LinkedIn posts/engagement; BBC Radio 4 / BBC website video clip
Medicine(s)	Evusheld; AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine (Vaxzevria referenced in appeal)
Main upheld issue	UK-based employee ‘liked’ Reuters/LinkedIn post disseminating positive information about Evusheld prior to UK marketing authorisation
Breach(es) upheld on appeal	Clause 5.1 (Matter 2 only)
No breach (final)	Clause 2; Clause 3.3; Clause 6.2; Clause 8.3; Clause 26.1; Clause 26.2; and Clause 5.1 for Matters 1 and 3
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Complaint received	4 January 2022 (PDF) / 05 January 2022 (web listing)
Case completed	8 August 2023
Appeal	Yes (AstraZeneca appealed; only Matter 2 breach upheld)

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: (1) a very senior AstraZeneca UK employee’s LinkedIn post linking to an iNews article about the Oxford/AZ Covid-19 vaccine; (2) a Reuters/LinkedIn post about Evusheld that was ‘liked’ by AstraZeneca employees; and (3) a BBC Radio 4 (Today Programme) interview featuring a very senior AstraZeneca employee.
Matter 2 (upheld at appeal): A LinkedIn-generated post (“AstraZeneca was mentioned in the news”) linked to a Reuters article titled “AstraZeneca antibody cocktail works against Omicron in study” about Evusheld. A UK-based AstraZeneca Global employee ‘liked’ it, which the Panel/Appeal Board considered would proactively disseminate the content to their connections (likely including members of the public).
Evusheld did not have a UK marketing authorisation at the time of the ‘like’ (UK approval was later on 17 March 2022).
AstraZeneca said the post was not created by AstraZeneca; employees were trained not to like/share/comment on product-related third-party content; and the ‘like’ was removed promptly after the complaint.
Matters 1 and 3: The Panel initially found breaches for the LinkedIn post and BBC interview, but these were overturned on appeal in the particular circumstances (Covid-19 context and vaccine licensing status/authorisation route).

⚖️

⌄

Breach upheld (final): Clause 5.1 in relation to Matter 2 (UK-based employee ‘like’ promoting Evusheld prior to marketing authorisation).
No breach (final): Clause 2 (overturned on appeal).
No breach: Clause 3.3 (undertaking) – Panel found the matters were sufficiently different to the earlier undertaking case.
No breach: Clause 6.2 (substantiation) – complainant did not discharge burden of proof regarding BBC interview claims.
No breach: Clause 8.3 – ruled not relevant because the materials/activities were considered promotional.
No breach: Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 – ruled not applicable on a narrow technical point because the products were not classified as prescription only medicines at the relevant times.

🔒

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