Amgen: sponsorship not clear “at the outset” in third-party webinar invite and infographic (AUTH/3702/10/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3702/10/22
Parties	Health Professional v Amgen
Issue	Invitation to a sponsored webinar and a downloadable infographic; prominence/clarity of sponsorship disclosure and misleading declaration wording
Applicable Code year	2021
Complaint received	27 October 2022
Case completed	24 August 2023
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 5.1; Clause 10.9
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 15.5; Clause 15.6
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Materials referenced	Email invitation ref GBR-162-1022-80004 (October 2022); Infographic ref GBR-162-1022-80002 (October 2022)

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 health professional complained about an email invitation (sent by a named independent organisation) promoting a webinar and offering a downloadable infographic, both sponsored by Amgen.
The email appeared in the recipient’s inbox as coming from the independent organisation and used its prominent logo; Amgen’s involvement was only stated near the bottom of the email.
The email included the statement: “This non-promotional webinar has been organised and funded by Amgen… Amgen product may be discussed as part of this meeting”, which the complainant said was misleading/confusing.
The downloadable infographic was titled with the independent organisation’s “BONE HEALTH MONTH OCTOBER 2022” branding; Amgen’s funding statement appeared via an asterisked note lower down, with an Amgen “BONE HEALTH” logo at the bottom right.
Concerns were also raised about whether the complainant had consented to receive promotional emails (privacy policy/permission point).

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 10.9 (sponsorship declaration not sufficiently prominent at the outset) in relation to both the email invitation and the infographic.
Breach of Clause 5.1 (high standards) because the declaration wording was misleading.
No breach of Clause 15.6 (disguised promotion) – the Panel did not consider there was an allegation in relation to disguised promotion.
No breach of Clause 15.5 (prior permission for promotional digital communications) – not established on the evidence that prior permission had not been given.
No breach of Clause 2 (discredit) – circumstances did not warrant this particular censure.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 10.9 Failing to include a sufficiently prominent declaration of sponsorship to ensure readers are aware of the pharmaceutical companies’ involvement at the outset.
Breach of Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
No Breach of Clause 15.5 Requirement that the telephone, text messages, email, faxes, automated calling systems, and other digital communications must not be used for promotional purposes, except with the prior permission of the recipient
No Breach of Clause 15.6 Requirement that promotional material and activities must not be disguised
No Breach of Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry

🔒

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