AUTH/3855/11/23: Complainant v Bayer (Google search access to HCP portal PDFs)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3855/11/23
Company	Bayer plc
Material/channel	Bayer website; PDFs accessible via Google search results
Complaint theme	Alleged public access to “advertisements” for POMs via Google
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable; described themselves as a health professional
Search terms referenced	“bayer uk diagnostic hub”; “bayer uk CVD”; “bayer uk formulary”
Product referenced	Nubeqa▼ (darolutamide) (formulary application support pack)
Applicable Code	2021
Clauses considered	5.1, 16.1, 26.1
Outcome	No breach of Clauses 5.1, 16.1, 26.1
Complaint received	20 November 2023
Case completed	17 January 2025
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 (self-described health professional) ran three Google searches and alleged they could access Bayer “advertisements” for multiple medicines, meaning prescription-only medicines (POMs) were promoted to the public.
The searches referenced were: “bayer uk diagnostic hub”, “bayer uk CVD”, and “bayer uk formulary”.
The complainant provided screenshots of search results and, for the third search, a PDF: “Nubeqa▼ (darolutamide) 300 mg tablets formulary application support pack”.
Bayer said the materials were hosted within its UK HCP online portal, which used a self-certification “honesty box”/audience splitter asking users to confirm they were a UK health professional or relevant decision maker; users selecting “No” were redirected to the corporate site.
Bayer stated it did not run paid search and had not implemented proactive SEO for the site.
Two of the three documents did not identify any Bayer medicine and were said to be non-promotional; the Nubeqa pack was promotional and clearly labelled “Promotional material intended for GB Healthcare Professionals only.”

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 26.1 (not advertising POMs to the public) in relation to all three Google searches/documents.
No breach of Clause 16.1 (internet promotional material about POMs directed to a UK audience must comply with the Code) – the self-certification audience splitter was considered to fulfil requirements.
No breach of Clause 5.1 (high standards) – no additional evidence of failure to maintain high standards.

📖

⌄

Clause 5.1 Requirement to maintain high standards at all times
Clause 16.1 Requirement that promotional material about prescription only medicines directed to a UK audience which is provided on the internet must comply with all relevant requirements of the Code
Clause 26.1 Requirement not to advertise prescription only medicines to the public

🔒

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