Sanofi: LinkedIn job-title post naming three POM brands – no breach (AUTH/3874/02/24) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3874/02/24
Parties	Ex-employee (anonymous complainant) v Sanofi
Channel	LinkedIn (public post and profile headline)
Allegation	Public naming of three product brand names in a job title constituted promotion to the public and might encourage people to look up the products; UK employees liked/commented.
Applicable Code	2021
Clauses considered	26.1, 26.2
Panel scope finding	Original post/profile by France-based Global employee was outside scope; UK employees’ engagement disseminated the post and brought it within scope.
Decision	No breach of Clause 26.1; No breach of Clause 26.2
Complaint received	2 February 2024
Case completed	9 January 2025
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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, non-contactable complainant (ex-employee) alleged a public LinkedIn post and profile headline named three Sanofi prescription medicine brand names as part of a job title.
The post was a templated LinkedIn “new role” announcement and was public.
The complainant alleged this constituted promotion to the public and might encourage people to look up the product names.
The post was “liked” and/or commented on by multiple Sanofi employees, including UK-based staff.
Sanofi identified UK employee engagement and asked relevant UK employees (10 initially identified) to remove likes/comments as a mitigation step; later it identified a total of 14 UK employees who had engaged.
Sanofi stated the original poster was a Global employee based in France and the job title reflected a Global franchise name that included the three brand names.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 26.1 (Requirement to not advertise prescription only medicines to the public).
No breach of Clause 26.2 (Requirement that information about prescription only medicines made available to the public must be factual, balanced, not raise unfounded hopes, or encourage the public to ask their health professional to prescribe a specific prescription only medicine).
No 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