GSK and a Daily Mail Shingrix article: Panel rules no breach (AUTH/3691/9/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3691/9/22
Company	GlaxoSmithKline
Complainant	Contactable complainant (member of the public)
Product	Shingrix (prescription only medicine)
Issue	Alleged public promotion/advertising via a Daily Mail Online article naming and praising Shingrix
Article date	19 February 2022
Complaint received	07 September 2022
Case completed	13 November 2023
Applicable Code	2021
Clauses considered	5.1, 26.1, 26.2
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 5.1, 26.1, 26.2
Appeal	No appeal
Company activity assessed	Two business/financial press releases (Jul/Oct 2021) and reactive email response to journalist (10 Feb 2022) declining interview and providing limited factual information with NHS signposting

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 member of the public complained about a Daily Mail Online article (19 Feb 2022) that named Shingrix and described it in highly positive terms, including comparisons with the NHS-offered vaccine.
The complainant questioned how the article could be public when it discussed benefits of a prescription-only vaccine and promoted a vaccination not on the NHS immunisation schedule.
GSK said it did not initiate, author, sponsor, brief, or interview for the article.
GSK had issued two Shingrix press releases (26 Jul 2021 and 20 Oct 2021) marked “for media and investors only” and circulated to business/financial journalists (including at the Daily Mail), not to the health journalist who wrote the article.
GSK had reactive contact with the health journalist after an unsolicited request (31 Jan 2022 onwards), declined an interview (10 Feb 2022) due to risk of promoting a POM to the public, and provided limited factual information by email (including an NHS link and signposting to a patient organisation for a case study request).
The Panel assessed whether any GSK material or interaction could have prompted the article (rather than judging the article itself).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 26.1.
No breach of Clause 26.2.
No breach of Clause 5.1.
The Panel considered the complainant had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that GSK’s actions caused the article or that GSK failed to maintain high standards.

📖

⌄

Clause 5.1 Requirement to maintain high standards at all times. No breach.
Clause 26.1 Requirement to not advertise prescription only medicines to the public. No breach.
Clause 26.2 Requirement that information about prescription only medicines which is made available to the public must be factual, balanced, must not raise unfounded hopes of successful treatment and must not encourage the public to ask their health professional to prescribe a specific prescription only medicine. No breach.

🔒

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