Sobi sponsored Guardian haemophilia article: no breach (AUTH/3696/10/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3696/10/22
Parties	Complainant v SOBI (Swedish Orphan Biovitrum Ltd)
Complaint received	11 October 2022
Case completed	27 July 2023
Applicable Code year	2021
Material	Sponsored article in print and online versions of The Guardian
Main allegations	Disguised/indirect promotion to the public; misleading/unsupported claims and phrasing; inappropriate references to grants/sponsorships and services
Panel decision	No breach
Clauses considered	3.6, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 23.2, 26.1, 27.1
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None 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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant challenged an article sponsored/paid for by Sobi and published in print and online by The Guardian about haemophilia and Sobi’s corporate initiatives.
The complainant alleged the piece was “commercial spin” and indirect/disguised promotion to the public, and objected to phrases including “live life without compromise”, “unique position”, “Liberation Maps”, references to mortality, sponsorships/grants, and “wraparound services”.
PMCPA asked Sobi to consider Clauses 3.6, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 23.2, 26.1 and 27.1 (2021 Code).
Sobi said the article named no medicines and did not hint at any identifiable Sobi product; it was certified by its Medical Director.
Sobi stated the article was withdrawn from The Guardian website on the day of publication following internal compliance concerns (action taken by a new compliance employee without consulting the GM/Medical Director), and Sobi held off republishing pending case outcome.
The Panel noted the complainant’s version differed in imagery/layout from the certified version, but written content appeared the same; the Panel ruled based on the article link provided by the complainant.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the ABPI Code of Practice (2021) in relation to the clauses considered.
The Panel found the complainant did not establish (on the balance of probabilities) that the article advertised POMs to the public or was disguised promotion.
The Panel considered several allegations too broad/unclear to amount to a bona fide allegation and therefore could not rule on those points.

📖

⌄

No Breach of Clause 3.6 Requirement that materials and activities must not be disguised promotion
No Breach of Clause 6.1 Requirement that information must not be misleading
No Breach of Clause 6.2 Requirement that claims/information/comparisons must be capable of substantiation
No Breach of Clause 23.2 Requirement that grants and donations to healthcare organisations, patient organisations or other organisations do not constitute an inducement to recommend and/or prescribe, purchase, supply, sell or administer specific medicines
No Breach of Clause 26.1 Requirement not to advertise prescription only medicines to the public
No Breach of Clause 27.1 Requirement that when pharmaceutical companies interact with patient organisations or any user organisation, companies must not promote or request the promotion of a particular prescription only medicine
No Breach of Clause 5.1 Requirement to maintain high standards

🔒

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