AstraZeneca breached Clause 3.1 after UK employee ‘liked’ third-party LinkedIn post about phase 3 datopotamab deruxtecan results (AUTH/3796/7/23)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3796/7/23
Company	AstraZeneca
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable complainant (described themself as an employee); later became non-contactable
Channel	LinkedIn (third-party post ‘liked’ by AstraZeneca UK employee)
Subject	Datopotamab deruxtecan; phase 3 TROPION-Lung01 results in certain lung cancer patients
Main issue	Whether an employee ‘like’ disseminated promotional pre-authorisation content
Applicable Code year	2021
Complaint received	7 July 2023
Case completed	14 August 2024
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 3.1; Clause 5.1
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 5.1 (x2); Clause 26.1; Clause 26.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth3796723-complainant-v-astrazeneca

Download the full case report (PDF)

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

📋

What happened

⌄

A complaint alleged AstraZeneca was promoting an off-licence/unlicensed medicine (datopotamab deruxtecan) to the public on LinkedIn after an AstraZeneca UK employee ‘liked’ a third-party post about the phase 3 TROPION-Lung01 study.
The third-party post linked to an article titled “AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo share positive results from phase 3 lung cancer study” and included positive efficacy statements (eg “statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival” and an “early trend” in overall survival).
The LinkedIn post and linked article included a prominent image showing the AstraZeneca name and logo on a building.
AstraZeneca said the post was created by a third party (not AstraZeneca) and therefore was not in scope of the Code; however, it confirmed a UK-based R&D employee with 500+ connections had liked it.
On receipt of the complaint, AstraZeneca asked the employee to withdraw the ‘like’; AstraZeneca said the employee did so immediately and was asked to refamiliarise themselves with the company’s global social media standard.
The Panel considered that the employee’s ‘like’ proactively disseminated the post to their LinkedIn connections (likely including members of the public), bringing the matter within the scope of the Code and making AstraZeneca responsible.
The Panel considered the post/article could not be seen as anything other than promotional due to the overall impression and positive statements about datopotamab deruxtecan.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

Breach of Clause 3.1 Promoting a medicine prior to the grant of a marketing authorisation.
Breach of Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards.
No Breach of Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
No Breach of Clause 5.1 (x2) Requirement to maintain high standards at all times (in relation to alleged repeated failures and alleged refusal to unlike).
No Breach of Clause 26.1 Requirement to not advertise prescription only medicines to the public.
No Breach of Clause 26.2 Requirement that information about prescription only medicines which is made available to the public must be factual, balanced, must not raise unfounded hopes of successful treatment or encourage the public to ask their health professional to prescribe a specific prescription only medicine.

📖

Clauses

⌄

Clause 3.1 Promoting a medicine prior to the grant of a marketing authorisation
Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
Clause 26.1 Requirement to not advertise prescription only medicines to the public
Clause 26.2 Requirement that information about prescription only medicines which is made available to the public must be factual, balanced, must not raise unfounded hopes of successful treatment or encourage the public to ask their health professional to prescribe a specific prescription only medicine

🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

AstraZeneca breached Clause 3.1 after UK employee ‘liked’ third-party LinkedIn post about phase 3 datopotamab deruxtecan results (AUTH/3796/7/23)

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Unlock the full case analysis

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown