PMCPA Case Library

Every PMCPA ruling since 2005 — searchable and filterable by company, clause, and ABPI Code version.

1,930
Cases
291
Companies
154
Clauses
6
Code Versions

or browse all 154 ABPI clause guides ↗

Case Library Membership

Filter by Company & ABPI Clause

Search free — but unlock advanced filters to find every case involving a specific company or clause.

Filter 1,930+ cases by any of 291 companies
Filter by any of 154 ABPI Code clauses
Filter by Code version (2016, 2019, 2021…)
Full-text keyword search across all cases
Cancel any time

Already a member? Sign in →

Case Library Membership

Best value
£249 /year Save £99

inc. VAT

£29 /month

inc. VAT · cancel any time

Unlock Full Access →

Secure payment via Stripe


Need access for your team?

Company licences available for compliance teams, medical affairs, and training programmes.

Get a team quote →

1,930 cases found

2008
CASE
2008 Code Roche Products Clause 2 Clause 9.1 Clause 20.2

Roche: £10 vouchers for children in Pulmozyme adherence programme (AUTH/2165/9/08)

Anonymous employee complained Roche incentivised children with cystic fibrosis to stay on Pulmozyme via £10 high-street vouchers. PMCPA found breaches for encouraging…

2017
CASE
2015 Code ViiV

AUTH/2981/9/17: Member of the public v ViiV Healthcare — iPad use on a train (No breach)

A member of the public saw Triumeq promotional material on a train on a third-party employee’s iPad. Panel found no promotion to…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Pfizer Clause 7.2 Clause 7.3 Clause 7.4 Clause 7.10

AUTH/2167/9/08: Astellas v Pfizer — Toviaz promotion, post hoc superiority claim and “new step” messaging

Pfizer’s Toviaz ad claimed superiority vs tolterodine based on post hoc analysis and used “a new step” wording. PMCPA ruled multiple breaches…

2009
CASE
2008 Code Merz Pharma UK Clause 7.2 Clause 7.3

AUTH/2270/10/09: Allergan v Merz Pharma — “At least as effective as Botox” claim based on non-inferiority studies

Merz’s exhibition claim that Xeomin was “at least as effective as Botox” was ruled misleading because the cited studies were non-inferiority trials…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Sanofi-Aventis

AUTH/2158/8/08: Pharmacist v Sanofi-Aventis — Acomplia reply-paid card fulfilment (No breach)

A pharmacist said Sanofi-Aventis didn’t fulfil a reply-paid card request for Acomplia studies and promotional items. Company said it never received the…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Roche Products Clause 2 Clause 9.1 Clause 20.2

Roche Pulmozyme cystic fibrosis adherence scheme: £10 vouchers for children led to Code breaches (AUTH/2165/9/08)

Roche ran a CF adherence programme offering £10 high-street vouchers to children/teens for returning Pulmozyme ampoule caps. PMCPA ruled it could prompt…

2017
CASE
2015 Code ViiV

AUTH/2981/9/17: Member of the public v ViiV Healthcare — iPad use on a train (No breach)

A member of the public saw Triumeq promotional material on a third-party employee’s iPad on a train. Panel ruled no promotion to…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Pfizer Clause 7.2 Clause 7.3 Clause 7.4 Clause 7.10

AUTH/2167/9/08: Pfizer breached the Code over Toviaz superiority and “new step” claims (Astellas complaint)

Pfizer’s Toviaz ad claimed superiority vs tolterodine based on a post hoc analysis and called Toviaz “a new step” in OAB. The…

2007
CASE
2008 Code Roche Clause 22

GSK and Roche: Bonviva ‘Building Bones’ ad reappeared in Pulse, breaching an undertaking (AUTH/2049/9/07 & AUTH/2050/9/07)

GSK and Roche withdrew Bonviva ‘Building Bones’ materials after an undertaking, but Pulse republished the old ad. Panel ruled breach of Clause…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Clause 1 Clause 7

AUTH/2168/9/08: Roche v Novartis – Zometa exhibition panel and adapted Forest plot

Roche challenged Novartis’ Zometa congress exhibition panel. Most allegations were not upheld, but the Panel ruled the adapted Forest plot was misleading…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Bracco Clause 7.2

GE Healthcare v Bracco: Niopam promotion and the IMPACT study—misleading by omission (Clause 7.2)

Bracco’s Niopam materials used the IMPACT study but omitted key methodological context (pooled secondary endpoints; power/sample size), creating a misleading impression. PMCPA…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Syner-Med Clause 7.2

AUTH/2170/9/08: Syner-Med Ferinject brochure – misleading CosmoFer infusion time (Clause 7.2)

A nurse complained a Ferinject brochure implied CosmoFer required a 6-hour infusion, causing anxiety about correct administration. Panel relied on an earlier…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Abbott Laboratories Clause 3.1 Clause 4.1 Clause 9.1 Clause 9.9 Clause 14.1 Clause 15.2

Abbott voluntary admission: Synagis email deemed promotional, uncertified and included off-licence recommendation (AUTH/2171/9/08)

Abbott admitted a rep’s Synagis email to HCPs was promotional but uncertified, lacked prescribing info, included an off-licence JCVI recommendation, and was…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Bayer Schering Pharma Clause 2 Clause 3.1 Clause 7.2 Clause 7.3 Clause 8.1 Clause 9.10 Clause 18.2

Boehringer Ingelheim v Bayer Schering Pharma: pre-licence promotion of Xarelto via congress stand and JBJS insert

Bayer Schering was found to have promoted Xarelto (rivaroxaban) before UK authorisation via a UK congress exhibition panel and a JBJS “supplement”…

2008
CASE
2008 Code Syner-Med Clause 7.2

AUTH/2173/10/08: Nurse v Syner-Med — Ferinject detail aid and misleading administration messaging

A nurse challenged a Ferinject detail aid as inaccurate. The PMCPA found the CosmoFer administration chart and “Single dose delivery” messaging on…

1114115116117118119120129

Ask questions about any PMCPA case

Our PMCPA rulings expert has knowledge of over 1,900 published cases — ask about precedents, clauses, and how they apply to your situation.

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free