AstraZeneca breached Clause 12 requirements in LinkedIn post promoting Calquence National Summit (AUTH/3857/11/23)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3857/11/23
Company	AstraZeneca UK Limited
Channel/material	LinkedIn post (sponsored/targeted) promoting CLL National Summit 2023
Medicine	Calquence (acalabrutinib)
Main issue	Post deemed promotional (brand + indication) but missing mandatory Clause 12 information for digital promotional material
Targeting / audience	Prespecified LinkedIn targeting criteria limited to health professionals with an interest in haematology; click-through required confirmation user was a UK HCP
Complaint received	24 November 2023
Case completed	10 February 2025
Applicable Code	2021
Breach clauses	5.1, 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10
No breach clauses	2, 26.1
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

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable health professional complained about an AstraZeneca sponsored LinkedIn post promoting a “CLL National Summit 2023”.
The version relied on by the Panel (PMCPA screenshot dated 27 Nov 2023) showed the linked webpage title as “Calquence National Summit 2023” and referenced “CLL”, so it included both brand name and indication.
AstraZeneca argued the certified/live version did not mention “Calquence National Summit”, and said LinkedIn/agency confirmed no changes; however, the Panel was not provided evidence explaining why the PMCPA screenshot differed and later changed.
The post was targeted using prespecified LinkedIn criteria to health professionals with an interest in haematology; clicking through required confirmation the user was a UK health professional before registration.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 (Failing to maintain high standards).
Breach of Clause 12.1 (Failing to include prescribing information).
Breach of Clause 12.3 (Failing to include the non-proprietary name of the medicine immediately adjacent to the most prominent display of the brand name).
Breach of Clause 12.6 (Failing to include a clear, prominent statement as to where prescribing information could be found).
Breach of Clause 12.9 (Failing to include the prominent adverse event reporting statement).
Breach of Clause 12.10 (Failing to include a black triangle adjacent to the first mention of the product in digital material).
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 26.1 (Requirement to not 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