Moderna employee’s policy articles and X activity: lack of transparency, one public POM advert and compliance framework failings (AUTH/3835/10/23)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3835/10/23
Parties	Complainant v Moderna Biotech UK Limited
Complaint received	09 October 2023
Applicable Code year	2021
Materials	Three online articles (Jan 2023, Jul 2023, Sep 2023) and tweets/re-tweets from employee’s personal X account (tweets 1–10)
Main issue	Insufficient clarity about Moderna’s role/involvement (employee’s senior Moderna role not disclosed prominently) and one instance of public advertising of a POM with no certification
Breach clauses	Clause 5.1 (x2); Clause 5.5 (x4); Clause 8.1; Clause 26.1
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 5.5; Clause 8.1 (x2); Clause 11.2; Clause 26.1
Appeal	Yes (Moderna appealed five Panel rulings; appealed breach rulings upheld)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Audit of company’s procedures (specific scope audit focusing on culture, governance and compliance framework)
Undertaking to Panel received	18 December 2024
Undertaking to Appeal Board received	11 February 2025
Appeal Board consideration	22 January, 13 March 2025
Appeal Board final decision / Case completed	13 March 2025

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 member of the public complained about three online policy articles authored/co-authored by a senior Moderna UK employee and related tweets/re-tweets from the employee’s personal Twitter/X account.
The complainant alleged Moderna’s involvement was not clear because the employee’s Moderna role was not disclosed at the outset of the articles and was not stated in the X profile used to disseminate them.
The Panel decided Moderna was responsible for the articles (and tweets 1–9 sharing them) because the content (vaccination/vaccines and policy influence), the employee’s senior role/job remit, Moderna’s commercial interests, and the public-facing forums combined to bring the activity within scope—irrespective of Moderna’s knowledge of the employee’s actions.
For Article 1, the combination of text referencing mRNA vaccines and a prominent photo of a Moderna Covid-19 vaccine meant it could not be considered anything other than advertising; it was treated as advertising a prescription only medicine to the public.
Tweets/re-tweets 1–9 linked to and amplified the articles without disclosing the employee’s Moderna role; “my own views” in the profile was considered insufficient.
Tweet 10 (re-tweet of a local authority public health announcement about getting vaccinated, including ‘long Covid’) was treated differently; on balance Moderna was not responsible for that re-tweet.
Moderna appealed five Panel rulings (including breaches relating to Articles 2 and 3, tweets 6–9, and Clause 5.1). The Appeal Board upheld the appealed breach rulings.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 (x2) – failing to maintain high standards (Panel rulings appealed and upheld).
Breach of Clause 5.5 (x4) – failing to be sufficiently clear as to the company’s role and involvement (three of four Panel breach rulings appealed and upheld).
Breach of Clause 8.1 – failing to certify promotional material.
Breach of Clause 26.1 – promoting a prescription only medicine to the public.
No breach of Clause 2.
No breach of Clause 5.5 (in relation to the local authority re-tweet, tweet 10).
No breach of Clause 8.1 (x2) (Articles 2 and 3 not considered promotional material requiring certification).
No breach of Clause 11.2 (in relation to tweet 10).
No breach of Clause 26.1 (Articles 2 and 3 did not advertise a specific POM to the public).

🔒

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

Moderna employee’s policy articles and X activity: lack of transparency, one public POM advert and compliance framework failings (AUTH/3835/10/23)

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Unlock the full case analysis

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown