Galapagos: ‘Strength of balance’ homepage claim for Jyseleca ruled ambiguous (breach Clause 6.1)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3668/6/22
Company	Galapagos
Product	Jyseleca (filgotinib)
Channel	Company website (strengthofbalance.co.uk), intended for health professionals in the UK and Republic of Ireland
Main issue	Homepage banner claims: “Strength of Balance” and “From Galapagos, delivering breakthroughs in RA and Inflammation”
Applicable Code	2021
Complaint received	29 June 2022
Case completed	3 July 2023
Appeal	No appeal
Breach finding	Clause 6.1 (for “strength of balance” as presented on the homepage)
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

🎬 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 promotional claims on Galapagos UK’s HCP website for Jyseleca (filgotinib): strengthofbalance.co.uk.
The homepage banner stated: “Strength of Balance” and “From Galapagos, delivering breakthroughs in RA and Inflammation”.
The complainant alleged both phrases implied special merit and were unsubstantiated, noting other JAK inhibitors existed and “breakthrough” was not justified by references.
Galapagos argued “Strength of Balance” was explained elsewhere on the site (eg, “At a Glance”) as a balance of sustained efficacy and acceptable tolerability, with references and links to PI/SPC/RMM.
Galapagos argued “delivering breakthroughs…” was a corporate/mission statement about Galapagos, not a product claim.
The Panel assessed whether the homepage wording was clear and compliant when read in isolation.

⚖️

⌄

Breach: Clause 6.1 (for “strength of balance” on the homepage) because it was ambiguous and insufficiently explained within the homepage’s visual field.
No breach: Clause 6.2 and Clause 14.4 (for “strength of balance”) because the Panel did not consider the complainant established that the ambiguous phrase implied an unsubstantiated special merit.
No breach: Clauses 6.1, 6.2 and 14.4 (for “delivering breakthroughs in RA and inflammation”) on a narrow basis: the Panel was concerned and saw it as a strong claim in context, but the complainant did not provide evidence sufficient to establish the allegation on the balance of probabilities.
No appeal.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 6.1 Making a misleading claim
No Breach of Clause 6.2 Requirement that claims/information/comparisons must be capable of substantiation
No Breach of Clause 14.4 Requirement that claims should not imply that a medicine or an active ingredient has some special merit, quality or property unless this can be substantiated
No Breach of Clause 6.1 Requirement that information must be accurate, up-to-date and not misleading
No Breach of Clause 6.2 Requirement that claims/information/comparisons must be capable of substantiation
No Breach of Clause 14.4 Requirement that claims should not imply that a medicine or an active ingredient has some special merit, quality or property unless this can be substantiated.

🔒

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