Jazz Pharmaceuticals: patient organisation event webpage failed to acknowledge sponsorship clearly from the outset (Clause 25.3)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3914/05/24
Company	Jazz Pharmaceuticals
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable complainant (health professional)
Material	“Events” webpage on a patient organisation website for a 2023 conference (including on-demand viewing)
Main issue	Sponsorship acknowledgement not clearly visible from the outset; wording “supported by” considered ambiguous
Event details	Conference in London, 17–18 November 2023 (two days: HCP educational content day one; families day two)
Applicable Code	ABPI Code of Practice 2021
Breach	Clause 25.3
No breach	Clauses 2, 5.1, 23.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Complaint received	31 May 2024
Case completed	13 June 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 (a health professional) alleged Jazz’s involvement in a patient organisation’s 2023 conference was not declared clearly from the outset of an “Events” webpage and was inaccurately described as “support” rather than a “grant”.
The webpage promoted on-demand viewing of the conference and included agenda/programme links, CPD accreditation information, access instructions, and a notice that the event had passed.
The sponsorship acknowledgement appeared near the bottom of the webpage under the heading “kindly supported by”, shown as a row of logos (including Jazz) that required scrolling to see.
Jazz stated it provided sponsorship (not a grant/donation) for the conference (London, 17–18 November 2023). The sponsorship package allowed attendance for three Jazz medical employees on day one only.
Jazz argued the complaint did not evidence what was shown “from the outset” at the time of the event and that it could not be responsible for ongoing third-party website content after the event.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 25.3 (Failing to ensure sponsorship is clearly acknowledged from the outset).
No breach of Clause 23.2 (Panel accepted the arrangement was sponsorship, not a donation/grant; no evidence to support a Clause 23.2 allegation).
No breach of Clause 5.1 (Panel considered the Clause 25.3 breach proportionate; no separate high-standards ruling warranted).
No breach of Clause 2 (Circumstances did not warrant the particular censure of Clause 2).
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