Novo Nordisk: business press interview led to public promotion of Wegovy (Clause 26) and high standards breach (Clause 5.1)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3890/4/24
Company	Novo Nordisk Ltd
Complainant	Contactable complainant (name not stated)
Material	Three national newspaper business-section articles based on an interview with a senior employee of Novo Holdings
Medicine referenced	Wegovy
Trial referenced	SELECT trial
Applicable Code year	2021
Complaint received	11 March 2024
Case completed	17 July 2025
Breach clauses	Clause 5.1; Clause 26.1; Clause 26.2
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 5.5; Clause 6.1 (x2); Clause 22.1
Appeal	Appeal by the complainant; Panel no-breach on Clause 5.1 overturned at appeal
Sanctions applied	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

📋

⌄

Three articles in the business section of a national newspaper were based on an interview with a senior employee of Novo Holdings (controlling shareholder of Novo Nordisk A/S).
The articles were written by a journalist and were not commissioned by Novo Nordisk Ltd; neither Novo Nordisk A/S nor Novo Holdings saw the articles before publication.
The articles included the name Wegovy (a prescription only medicine) and its use in obesity, plus enthusiastic statements about SELECT trial outcomes (eg, reducing heart attacks/strokes by a fifth).
Novo Nordisk UK said it had a process for notifying the UK affiliate about interviews with UK publications managed by Novo Nordisk A/S, but Novo Holdings was not aware of the process; the UK affiliate had no oversight and the interviewee was not briefed on ABPI Code requirements.
The complainant alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest, lack of transparency about SELECT trial funding, misleading content, and promotion of a POM to the public; the complainant appealed five Panel rulings.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 26.1 – Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public.
Breach of Clause 26.2 – Unbalanced information and encouraging members of the public to ask for a specific prescription only medicine.
Breach of Clause 5.1 – Failing to maintain high standards (Panel no-breach overturned on appeal).
No breach of Clause 2 – Allegation that the articles brought the industry into disrepute was not established on the balance of probabilities.
No breach of Clause 5.5 – No requirement for an explicit statement that Novo Nordisk funded SELECT in the context of these articles.
No breach of Clause 6.1 (x2) – Information not found to be misleading in the ways alleged.
No breach of Clause 22.1 – SELECT was not a non-interventional study and no specific allegation was made out under this clause.

🔒

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