AUTH/3798/7/23: Bausch & Lomb voluntary admission after former agency LinkedIn post referenced Emerade (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3798/7/23
Company	Bausch & Lomb UK Limited
Type	Voluntary admission (treated as a complaint)
Issue	Former creative agency LinkedIn post referencing Emerade and using Bausch & Lomb logo; linked article about an “Emerade App”
Platforms mentioned	LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram; agency website article
Medicine	Emerade (adrenaline) auto-injector (pre-filled pen)
Applicable Code year	2021
Clauses considered	Clause 26.1; Clause 5.1
Panel finding	No breach of Clause 26.1; No breach of Clause 5.1
Key reasoning	Contract/engagement with the agency likely ended in 2019; agency had no consent to use logo/medicine reference; therefore agency was not a third party at the time and Bausch & Lomb was not responsible for the post
Complaint received	11 July 2023
Case completed	5 August 2024
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None stated (No breach)

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

📋

⌄

Bausch & Lomb made a voluntary admission after discovering a LinkedIn post by a creative agency it had previously used, but was not currently under contract with.
The agency’s post included the Bausch & Lomb logo and referenced the branded prescription-only medicine Emerade (adrenaline), linking to an agency website article describing an “Emerade App” developed years earlier.
The agency also deployed adverts promoting the article on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram on 10 July 2023.
Bausch & Lomb emailed the agency requesting urgent removal; the post/article/adverts were removed at 08:17 on 11 July 2023.
Agency analytics reported 165 impressions and clicks through to the article of Twitter: 2, LinkedIn: 2, Facebook: 0.
Bausch & Lomb stated the agency had no permission to use its IP and cited its purchase order terms (Clause 19) prohibiting use of the company name/trademarks in publicity without written permission.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 26.1 (Requirement not to advertise prescription only medicines to the public).
No breach of Clause 5.1 (Requirement to maintain high standards at all times).
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