Pfizer press release: dark grey (not black) ▼ symbol ruled a high-standards breach (AUTH/3672/6/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3672/6/22
Company	Pfizer
Complainant	Contactable complainant (concerned UK health professional)
Material	Press release on Pfizer UK website media section
Topic	Incorrect colour of the black triangle (▼) and MHRA references in a press release
Product	Paxlovid (PF-07321332 tablets and ritonavir tablets)
Applicable Code	2021
Complaint received	29 June 2022
Case completed	30 June 2023
Breach	Clause 5.1
No breach	Clause 15.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received
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 UK health professional complained about a Pfizer UK website press release in the media section (dated 31 December 2021) titled “PFIZER’S NOVEL COVID-19 ORAL ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT AUTHORISED FOR SUPPLY AND USE BY THE MHRA”.
The press release included multiple references to the MHRA and stated the MHRA had granted GB conditional marketing authorisation for Paxlovid.
The complainant alleged the inverted black triangle (▼) shown after PAXLOVID appeared dark grey rather than black, and that MHRA references breached Clause 15.2.
Pfizer said the item was a non-promotional press release intended for UK media; it did not drive HCPs or patients to it. The ▼ was included for transparency/completeness, not because it was required.
Pfizer explained the triangle was intended to be black at signatory approval, but after publication the website’s standard text colour scheme auto-attributed a dark grey colour to the symbol.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 (Failing to maintain high standards) for publishing the ▼ in dark grey rather than black; the Panel considered this inappropriate and potentially confusing even though the symbol was not required in a non-promotional press release.
No breach of Clause 15.2 because the complainant did not establish the press release was promotional, so Clause 15.2 did not apply.
No appeal.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
No Breach of Clause 15.2 Requirement that promotional material must not include any reference to the Commission on Human Medicines, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or the licensing authority, unless this is specifically required by the licensing authority

🔒

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