AUTH/3696/10/22: Complainant v SOBI — Guardian sponsored corporate article (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3696/10/22
Company	SOBI (Swedish Orphan Biovitrum Ltd)
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable
Material	Sponsored article in print and online versions of The Guardian
Main issues alleged	Disguised promotion/POM advertising to public; misleading/unsubstantiated claims; grants/sponsorship inducement; patient organisation-related indirect promotion
Applicable Code	2021
Clauses considered	3.6, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 23.2, 26.1, 27.1
Outcome	No breach
Complaint received	11 October 2022
Case completed	27 July 2023
Appeal	No appeal
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant challenged a corporate article sponsored by SOBI (Swedish Orphan Biovitrum Ltd) and published in print and online by The Guardian.
The complainant alleged the article’s purpose was indirect promotion to the public, including “around the houses” promotion via patient advocacy pressure.
Specific criticisms included the headline phrase “live life without compromise”, a claim that SOBI was in a “unique position” as a smaller company, reference to a tool called “Liberation Maps”, statements about historically higher mortality in haemophilia, mention of sponsorships/grants, and “wraparound services” not being explained.
The 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 did not identify any medicine, was certified by its Medical Director, and was intended to describe corporate commitment to haemophilia.
SOBI also described an internal compliance action: a new compliance employee independently directed the article be withdrawn from The Guardian website on the day of publication pending internal discussion; SOBI later stood by certification and held off republishing until the case concluded.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
No breach of Clause 3.6 (disguised promotion).
No breach of Clause 26.1 (advertising prescription only medicines to the public).
No breach of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 (misleading information / substantiation) in relation to the challenged statements.
No breach of Clause 23.2 (grants/donations as inducement) regarding mention of sponsorships and grants.
No breach of Clause 27.1 (patient organisation interactions) as the complainant did not evidence promotion or requested promotion of a POM.
No breach of Clause 5.1 (high standards) within the scope of the complaint.

📖

⌄

Clause 3.6 Requirement that materials and activities must not be disguised promotion
Clause 6.1 Requirement that information must not be misleading
Clause 6.2 Requirement that claims/information/comparisons must be capable of substantiation
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
Clause 26.1 Requirement not to advertise prescription only medicines to the public
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
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