Jazz Pharmaceuticals UK breached transparency rules for patient organisation-funded family guide (AUTH/3907/05/24)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3907/05/24
Company	Jazz Pharmaceuticals UK
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable complainant (health professional)
Issue	Disclosure/transparency of company involvement in a patient organisation “Family Guide”
Material	“Family Guide” (49 double-view pages), downloadable PDF; designed primarily as hard copy booklet
Funding	Unrestricted grants: £15,000 (Jan 2020) and £30,000 (Jun 2020)
Declaration wording (as published)	“Supported by an educational grant from Jazz Pharmaceuticals”
Declaration placement (as published)	Bottom of page 5 (small font) and back cover (page 49)
Applicable Code	2021
Breach clauses	23.2, 25.3
No breach clauses	2, 5.1
Complaint received	16 May 2024
Case completed	20 June 2025
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable health professional complained about a patient organisation “Family Guide” booklet funded by Jazz via an educational grant.
The complainant alleged the funding declaration was not provided at the outset of the booklet (only at the end).
Jazz said the declaration appeared on the contents page and the back cover, and argued this met the Code for grants and that Clause 25.3 (sponsorship) did not apply.
The Panel reviewed the booklet structure: cover (page 1), welcome (page 2), about the organisation (page 3), contents (pages 4–5). The declaration “Supported by an educational grant from Jazz Pharmaceuticals” appeared at the bottom of page 5 in small font, and again on the back cover (page 49).
The Panel considered pages 2 and 3 to be part of the booklet’s content and found the declaration’s placement and prominence inadequate; a reader could miss it.
The Panel also noted the grant agreements required acknowledgement “where requested” but did not specify wording, location, or prominence of the declaration.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clauses 23.2 and 25.3 (one ruling applied to both): failure to ensure sponsorship/company involvement was clearly acknowledged from the outset.
No breach of Clause 5.1 (high standards).
No breach of Clause 2 (discredit to the industry).

🔒

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