AstraZeneca Twitter/X posts about Covid-19 vaccine: one tweet ruled promotional pre-authorisation (AUTH/3892/4/24)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3892/4/24
Company	AstraZeneca
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable complainant; taken up in the name of the Chief Executive (PMCPA)
Channel	Twitter/X (UK corporate account @AstraZeneca)
Material	Four tweets about AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine (30 Dec 2020 to 25 Mar 2021)
Main issue	Whether tweets were promotional (including pre-marketing authorisation promotion) and whether certification was required
Applicable Code	2019
Panel finding (Tweets 1–3)	Non-promotional corporate announcements/advertising; no breaches
Panel finding (Tweet 4)	Promotional due to positive statements (“well-tolerated”, “highly effective”, etc.) disseminated to public pre-marketing authorisation; not certified
Breach clauses	Clause 3.1; Clause 9.1; Clause 14.1
No breach clauses (Tweet 4)	Clause 2; Clause 26.1; Clause 29
Undertaking breach alleged?	Yes (re: AUTH/3430/11/20), but Panel ruled no breach of Clause 29
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Complaint received	16 April 2024
Case completed	6 May 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 anonymous, contactable complainant alleged AstraZeneca’s UK corporate Twitter/X account posted items promoting its Covid-19 vaccine to the public and amounting to pre-licence promotion.
The complainant also alleged AstraZeneca breached an undertaking given in an earlier case (AUTH/3430/11/20) because the material remained live online.
The PMCPA assessed four tweets posted between 30 December 2020 and 25 March 2021.
AstraZeneca said the posts were non-promotional, factual corporate communications during the pandemic; the vaccine had an Emergency Use Authorisation under Regulation 174 (not a marketing authorisation).
The Panel found Tweets 1–3 were not promotion of a medicine, but found Tweet 4 promotional due to positive efficacy/tolerability statements and broad public dissemination via Twitter/X.

⚖️

⌄

📖

⌄

Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
Clause 3.1 Requirement not to promote a medicine prior to the grant of its marketing authorisation
Clause 9.1 Requirement to maintain high standards at all times
Clause 14.1 Requirement to certify promotional material
Clause 26.1 Requirement not to advertise prescription only medicines to the public
Clause 29 Requirement to comply with an undertaking

🔒

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