AUTH/3880/2/24: Complainant v GSK — LinkedIn acquisition post referencing investigational AIO-001 (No breach after appeal)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3880/2/24
Company	GSK UK Limited
Complainant	Contactable complainant (described themselves as a concerned health professional)
Channel	LinkedIn post and linked press release on GSK corporate website
Subject matter	Acquisition of Aiolos Bio; investigational molecule AIO-001 and potential indication (asthma)
Key issue alleged	Pre-licence promotion to the public and HCPs; whether post/press release were approved for sharing with the public
Applicable Code year	2021
Clauses considered	Clauses 3.1, 5.1, 8.1, 8.3, 26.1
Panel decision	No breach of 3.1, 8.1, 8.3, 26.1; breach of 5.1 (later appealed)
Appeal outcome	Appeal successful; no breach of Clause 5.1; no breach overall
Complaint received	19 February 2024
Case completed	22 May 2025

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 concerned health professional complained about a LinkedIn post announcing GSK’s acquisition of Aiolos Bio and referencing investigational molecule AIO-001 “in asthma and potentially other indications”, with a link (“call to action”) to a GSK press release.
A senior UK-based GSK employee commented on the post (“Great to have you onboard…”), which the Panel considered disseminated the post (and linked press release) to the commenter’s own LinkedIn contacts.
The Panel treated the linked press release as part of the social media post for Code assessment.
GSK said the post was taken down once the complaint was known; the comment was also removed.
GSK stated AIO-001 was an investigational molecule (about to enter/ready to enter Phase II clinical development), with no marketing authorisation application submitted and no product name assigned.
GSK provided evidence that the press release had been examined by a named medical signatory (correcting an earlier statement about who examined it).
At appeal, GSK stated the original LinkedIn post was made by a former Aiolos Bio employee who never became a GSK employee (information not available to the Panel at first instance).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code overall.
No breach of Clause 3.1 (AIO-001 not considered a “medicine” at the time; therefore no pre-authorisation promotion of a medicine).
No breach of Clause 26.1 (AIO-001 not classified as a prescription only medicine at the time).
No breach of Clause 8.1 (materials not covered as promotional material for a medicine in the circumstances).
No breach of Clause 8.3 (post/press release not within listed materials requiring certification; press release was examined by a named signatory in any event).
Clause 5.1: Panel initially ruled a breach for failure to maintain high standards, but this was overturned on appeal and resulted in no breach.

📖

⌄

Clause 3.1 Requirement that a medicine must not be promoted prior to the grant of its marketing authorisation
Clause 5.1 Requirement to maintain high standards at all times
Clause 8.1 Requirement to certify promotional material
Clause 8.3 Requirement to certify non-promotional material
Clause 26.1 Requirement not to 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