Pfizer: employees’ LinkedIn ‘likes’ brought third‑party talazoparib post into Code scope (AUTH/3879/2/24)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3879/2/24
Company	Pfizer
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable
Medicine / subject	Talazoparib (Talzenna)
Channel	LinkedIn (third-party post; employee ‘likes’)
Core issue	Employees’ ‘likes’ disseminated a post naming a POM (with indication and benefit claim) to connections including members of the public
Applicable Code	2021
Clauses considered	26.1 and 5.1
Decision	Breach Clause 26.1; No breach Clause 5.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Complaint received	9 February 2024
Case completed	19 February 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 independent cancer research charitable organisation posted on LinkedIn about “a new drug, talazoparib” becoming an NHS targeted treatment for advanced breast cancers caused by BRCA mutations, including an efficacy-style claim and a link to a longer article.
An anonymous, non-contactable complainant alleged a Pfizer employee had ‘liked’ the post.
Pfizer investigated and found the post had been ‘liked’ by four UK-based Pfizer employees (the one identified plus three others).
Pfizer said the original post was independently authored (no Pfizer involvement) and that one ‘like’ was accidental; others included colleagues not aware it referred to a Pfizer medicine / a former employee of the charity.
All four employees removed their ‘likes’ after the issue was identified.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 26.1 (Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public).
No breach of Clause 5.1 (Requirement to maintain high standards at all times).
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