Gilead: third‑party ESMO 2023 update email lacked clear company involvement (Clause 5.5)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3862/12/23
Company	Gilead Sciences Ltd (ABPI member); UK-based European affiliate involved (Gilead Sciences Europe Ltd)
Complaint source	Anonymous, contactable complainant (described themselves as a UK doctor)
Material	Third-party medical publication email and linked webpage containing Gilead-sponsored banner/video/pop-ups and links to a Gilead InfoSite
Main issue	Whether Gilead’s involvement was sufficiently clear (email and webpage) and whether activity was disguised promotion
Applicable Code year	2021
Complaint received	12 December 2023
Case completed	11 April 2025
Appeal	No appeal
Breach findings	Clause 5.5 (email)
No breach findings	Clause 5.5 (webpage as a whole); Clause 15.6 (x2); Clause 5.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated

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, contactable UK doctor complained about an email (27 Nov 2023) from a named medical publication with the subject “Genitourinary Cancers: ESMO 2023 Update”.
The email looked like an unbiased educational ESMO 2023 trial update and did not mention any pharmaceutical company; only small-print at the bottom said it was a “promotional communication” provided by the third-party publisher’s professional services.
The email’s “Watch [third party medical publisher’s product]” link took recipients to a webpage that included: (a) the publisher’s editorial video/article on trial data and (b) Gilead-sponsored elements (a video thumbnail labelled “INFORMATION FROM INDUSTRY”, a Gilead banner, and Gilead pop-ups triggered by clicking hyperlinked medicine names in the editorial article).
The complainant alleged lack of transparency about who paid, and “disguised marketing” via pop-ups appearing when clicking medicine hyperlinks.
Gilead said it had an agreement (via its European affiliate) to place non-promotional disease education assets (video/banner/pop-ups linking to a Gilead “InfoSite”) around independent editorial content; it said the Gilead assets were clearly labelled as industry content and produced/funded by Gilead.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.5 (in relation to the email): failing to be sufficiently clear as to the company’s role and involvement.
No breach of Clause 5.5 (in relation to the linked webpage as a whole): the page was primarily the publisher’s content and the Gilead-sponsored elements were identifiable.
No breach of Clause 15.6 (x2) (email and hyperlinks/pop-ups): the complainant did not establish that the materials were promotional and disguised; the Panel did not infer promotion on the complainant’s behalf.
No breach of Clause 5.1: the Clause 5.5 breach was considered proportionate and there were no additional factors warranting a high-standards breach.

🔒

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