Eli Lilly: Sponsored breast cancer editorial promoted via Facebook/Instagram ads reached the public (Clause 26) and lacked clear sponsorship at the outset

📊

Key facts

⌄

Field	Details
Case number	AUTH/3869/12/23
Parties	Complainant v Eli Lilly and Company Limited
Issue	Facebook/Instagram paid advertisement by a medical publisher linking to a Lilly-sponsored breast cancer editorial article
Platform(s)	Facebook and Instagram; linked article hosted on a medical publisher website
Medicine mentioned	Abemaciclib
Therapy area	Breast cancer (high-risk early breast cancer; HR-positive, HER2-negative)
Applicable Code year	2021
Complaint received	18 December 2023
Case completed	3 July 2025
Panel breaches	Clauses 3.6, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 15.5, 16.1, 26.1, 26.2
Clause 2	No breach (upheld on appeal)
Sanctions applied	Undertaking received
Appeal	Appeal by the complainant (Clause 2) unsuccessful

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

📋

⌄

A complainant (a doctor) saw a paid “Sponsored” Facebook advertisement from a medical publisher titled “Treating High-Risk Early BC”, which also appeared repeatedly and later on Instagram.
The ad linked to an editorial article on the publisher’s site titled “The Use of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the Treatment of High-Risk, HR-Positive, HER2-Negative, Early Breast Cancer” which was funded through sponsorship by Eli Lilly and referenced Lilly’s medicine abemaciclib.
The complainant alleged the ad was being shown to non-HCP members of the public (citing interactions by people described as a train driver and a teacher) and that the targeting/retargeting felt intrusive and consent was not given for such promotional content on personal social media.
Lilly stated the activity was intended as independent medical education for HCPs, that the UK compliance team was not made aware, and that the publisher used pixel/cookie-based retargeting and HCP validation; Lilly instructed the publisher to cease UK dissemination on receipt of the complaint.
The Panel reviewed the Work Order and concluded the arrangements were not truly arm’s length (eg, dissemination expectations and detailed traffic reporting), and that Lilly was responsible for the article and its drivers (including the Facebook ad).

⚖️

⌄

📖

⌄

Clause 3.6 Disguising promotional material
Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
Clause 5.5 Failing to be sufficiently clear as to the company’s role and involvement
Clause 5.6 Failing to provide or make available material to those groups of people whose need for or interest in it could reasonably be assumed
Clause 15.5 Failing to obtain prior permission from the recipient when using digital communications for promotional purposes
Clause 16.1 Failing to comply with all relevant requirements of the Code regarding promotional material on the internet
Clause 26.1 Promoting a prescription only medicine to the public
Clause 26.2 Providing unbalanced information and encouraging members of the public to ask for a specific prescription only medicine
Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry (No breach; upheld on appeal)

🔒

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