AUTH/2918/12/16 - Ex-employee v GlaxoSmithKline

Material on internal hosting server

  • Received
    19 December 2016
  • Case number
    AUTH/2918/12/16
  • Applicable Code year
    2016
  • Completed
    03 February 2017
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    May 2017 Review

Case Summary

​​A former GlaxoSmithKline employee who no longer worked in the pharmaceutical industry, complained about an online cost calculator prepared for Relvar Ellipta (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol) by GlaxoSmithKline UK, which the complainant found using the search team 'GSK cost calculator'. The complainant alleged breaches of the Code as the page at issue did not include prescribing information, the non-proprietary name, an adverse event reporting statement or a black triangle to denote that additional monitoring was required. He/ she alleged that the material promoted prescription only medicines to the public and that high standards had not been maintained. 

The page at issue promoted Relvar Ellipta 92/22mcg and claimed it was the cheapest. 

The detailed response from GlaxoSmithKline is given below. 

The Panel noted GlaxoSmithKline's explanation that in August 2016 that search engines were searching the company's internal hosting servers and that this was quickly resolved. On receipt of this complaint GlaxoSmithKline became aware that the fix put in place in August 2016 no longer prevented such searches. This appeared to be due to the continuous evolution of search engine technology; search engines were not obliged to share publicly when updates were made. 

The Panel noted GlaxoSmithKline's submission that if the page of the website was accessed in the manner intended ie not via the internal hosting server but via the health professional site (hcp.gsk. co.uk) be that directly, via links from other materials or by searching for 'Relvar costs', 'Relvar cost calculator', 'GSK medicines' or similar, then all the obligatory information was available. It was clear to visitors that the site was for health professionals rather than the public which had its own site. 

​The Panel was sympathetic to the company's submission and considered that it had taken reasonable steps to ensure that its internal hosting server was not accessed by search engines. It also noted the submission regarding search engines tailoring search results to the individual user and that the complainant was an ex-employee with specialist knowledge. Although the Panel was concerned that material that did not appear to meet the requirements of the Code could be accessed, it seemed reasonable in this case to consider it as material on an internal company hosting server rather than that which was intended for UK health professionals. The Panel decided that the lack of obligatory information when searching on the internal company hosting server did not amount to breaches of the Code as alleged. It considered that health professionals would be supplied with the requisite information including the prescribing information, the non-proprietary name, the adverse event statement and the black triangle when using the websites for external use. It did not consider that the circumstances amounted to advertising a prescription only medicine to the public or that the company had failed to maintain high standards. No breaches of the Code were ruled.​