UCB: Senior UK employee ‘liked’ LinkedIn post about Fintepla in Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (AUTH/3726/1/23)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3726/1/23
Company	UCB
Medicine	Fintepla (fenfluramine)
Channel	LinkedIn (personal accounts)
Allegation	Promotion of Fintepla for Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (not licensed in GB at the time) and exposure to the public
Key conduct	Germany-based employee posted; senior UK employee ‘liked’ the post, increasing visibility to their connections
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable; described themselves as a UK doctor
Applicable Code year	2021
Breaches	Clause 3.2; Clause 3.6; Clause 5.1; Clause 11.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Complaint received	10 January 2023
Case completed	04 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

📋

⌄

A LinkedIn post was shared by a UCB employee based in Germany stating: “Hope for patients with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome!”.
The post linked to a third-party website article titled: “Epilepsia Publishes Interim Results of Open-Label Extension Study of FINTEPLA (fenfluramine) Oral Solution in Patients with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS)”.
A senior UCB UK employee ‘liked’ the post from their personal LinkedIn account.
The complainant (anonymous, non-contactable; described themselves as a UK doctor) alleged inappropriate promotion because Fintepla was not licensed for Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS) in the UK at the time, and said the post had been seen by non-medical people (including a medical student and a patient).
UCB argued the original post and linked US press release were not intended for the UK and were out of scope; however, it acknowledged the UK employee’s ‘like’ was against its UK & Ireland social media policy and voluntarily admitted non-compliance with Clauses 3.2 and 11.2 in relation to that ‘like’.
UCB arranged for the Germany-based employee to delete the post (which also removed the ‘like’) and addressed the UK employee’s policy breach with additional training and an action on their employee record.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 3.2 Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public
Breach of Clause 3.6 Disguised promotion
Breach of Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
Breach of Clause 11.2 Promotion of a medicine outside the terms of its marketing authorisation
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