Roche breach over ambiguous sponsorship disclosure on university white paper webpage (AUTH/3924/6/24)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3924/6/24
Company	Roche Products Ltd (F. Hoffmann-La Roche referenced)
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable; described as member of the public/media
Subject	Declaration of involvement/sponsorship wording for a white paper and associated webpage
Materials	(1) University/consultancy webpage hosting download; (2) 35-page white paper PDF (Nov 2018)
Applicable Code	2016
Complaint received	07 June 2024
Case completed	08 August 2025
Appeal	No appeal
Breach	Clause 9.10 (webpage disclosure ambiguous)
No breach	Clause 2; Clause 9.1; Clause 9.10 (PDF); Clause 19.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received

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 complainant alleged Roche’s involvement/funding for a white paper on management of a medical condition was not accurately disclosed or disclosed from the outset.
Two items were considered: (1) the university/consultancy webpage hosting the download; (2) the 35-page white paper PDF (Nov 2018).
The webpage included disease information and a single disclosure: “Client: F-Hoffman-La Roche”.
The PDF included an early “Acknowledgements” page stating: “The authors are grateful for the financial contribution received from F.Hoffman-La Roche Ltd through an unrestricted educational grant to support the research presented in this paper”.
Roche said it provided financial support under an agreement (entered Nov 2016) and had no influence or involvement in developing the white paper; it acknowledged the disclosure could have been more expansive on the webpage.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 9.10 (2016 Code) in relation to the webpage: disclosure was considered ambiguous and not unambiguous about extent of involvement/influence.
No breach of Clause 9.10 (2016 Code) in relation to the PDF white paper: acknowledgement was at the outset and made funding clear.
No breach of Clause 19.1 (2016 Code).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (2016 Code).
No breach of Clause 2 (2016 Code).

🔒

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