GSK: UK employees’ LinkedIn ‘likes’ brought global Jemperli post into scope and amounted to POM promotion to the public (AUTH/3810/8/23)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3810/8/23
Company	GSK (GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited)
Medicine	Jemperli (dostarlimab)
Channel	LinkedIn post and linked press release on gsk.com
Issue	UK employees’ ‘likes’ disseminated promotional content about US FDA approval/expanded indication, likely to mixed audiences including the public
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable ex-employee
Complaint received	10 August 2023
Case completed	11 October 2024
Applicable Code	2021
Breach clauses	Clause 5.1; Clause 26.1
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 3.1; Clause 26.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant (ex-employee) alleged a GSK employee shared a LinkedIn post about Jemperli’s (dostarlimab) US licence expansion, linking to a GSK press release, and that UK colleagues ‘liked’ it, spreading unlicensed information to the UK public.
The original LinkedIn post was made by an Italy-based GSK employee (8 August 2023) and referenced the FDA and US approval; it included the statement: “Today’s [FDA] expanded approval of Jemperli redefines the treatment landscape…” plus hashtags and a prominent GSK logo, and linked to a gsk.com press release.
GSK confirmed only two UK-based employees (both in Global roles, not UK affiliate; not customer-facing) had ‘liked’ the post; their LinkedIn networks (423 and 1700 connections) potentially included members of the public.
GSK instructed the two UK employees to remove their ‘likes’ on 16 August 2023 (same day GSK received the PMCPA letter); they did so immediately.
The Panel considered the LinkedIn post and linked press release “could not be seen as anything other than promotional” (including strong efficacy/benefit language and trial results) and found it was the UK employees’ interaction that brought the matter into scope of the UK Code.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 (Failing to maintain high standards).
Breach of Clause 26.1 (Promoting a prescription only medicine to the public).
No breach of Clause 2.
No breach of Clause 3.1.
No breach of Clause 26.2.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
Breach of Clause 26.1 Promoting a prescription only medicine to the public
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 3.1 Requirement that a medicine must not be promoted prior to the grant of marketing authorisation
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.

🔒

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