PMCPA AUTH/3713/11/22: Tillotts Pharma v Dr Falk Pharma (Budenofalk digital ad not withdrawn)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3713/11/22
Complainant	Tillotts Pharma UK Ltd
Respondent	Dr Falk Pharma UK Ltd
Material	Budenofalk 3mg capsules digital advertisement (UI 2200023)
Main issue	Failure to withdraw and continued use of a digital advertisement ~12 weeks after agreeing to withdraw during inter-company dialogue
Panel note on cause	Digital ad was reintroduced by a third-party agency in error; company still responsible for third parties
Applicable Code	2021
Breach(es)	Clause 5.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Complaint received	17 November 2022
Case completed	24 January 2024
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

📋

⌄

Tillotts asked Dr Falk to withdraw a Budenofalk 3mg capsules digital advertisement (UI 2200023) following inter-company dialogue about an allegedly misleading claim.
Inter-company dialogue concluded in August 2022; Dr Falk said the material was under review and would be updated to remove the text in question, and it was agreed the material would be withdrawn.
About 12 weeks later, Tillotts alleged the digital advertisement was still in use and complained to the PMCPA about failure to withdraw/continued use (not the content at that time).
Dr Falk said it instructed its distribution agency to withdraw digital and print ads (verbal instruction followed by email on 24 August 2022) and confirmed withdrawal to Tillotts on 26 August 2022.
After a further letter from Tillotts (16 November), Dr Falk discovered the digital material had been reintroduced by the agency in error, without Dr Falk’s knowledge; Dr Falk reinstructed removal and investigated.
The ad included the claim “Recommended by the BSG for its low-risk status”; the Panel noted concerns about the claim but made no ruling on content because the complaint was limited to withdrawal/continued use.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: Clause 5.1 (Failing to maintain high standards).
No ruling made on the advertisement’s claim substantiation/misleading nature because it was not part of the complaint.
No appeal.

🔒

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