AUTH/3371/8/20 - Complainant v Pfizer

Access to ‘hidden’ page on company website

  • Received
    12 August 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3371/8/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    29 March 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

A complainant, who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional, provided a screenshot of a page from the Pfizer Limited website (Pfizerpro) about Sayana-Press (medroxyprogesterone acetate suspension for injection). The screenshot showed options to click for two ‘Useful Resources’, ie ‘Order materials’ or ‘Sayana-Press Patient website’. The complainant noted that there was no link to the prescribing information on the page. Sayana-Press was indicated for long-term female contraception.

The detailed response from Pfizer is given below.

The Panel noted Pfizer’s submission that, when accessed as intended, all elements of the Sayana-Press microsite on the Pfizerpro website met the requirements for provision of prescribing information as set out in the Code. The Panel noted that the Sayana-Press microsite homepage provided by Pfizer stated ‘Product information and a link to the SPC is available at the bottom of the page’ and the prescribing information was provided at the bottom of each of the four pages of the microsite by way of the cost, legal category and a link to the summary of product characteristics. The Panel noted that the two ‘Useful Resources’ links identified by the complainant could be seen populating a tile at the bottom right of the Sayana-Press microsite homepage and, according to Pfizer, these links pointed to an external material ordering site and a standalone Sayana-Press patient support website.

The Panel noted Pfizer’s explanation that a hidden list page for ‘Useful Resources’ was automatically created and populated by the website for the eventuality that there were more than four links added to the ‘Useful Resources’ tile and a ‘See All’ option was required to view all of the links. As the Sayana-Press ‘Useful Resources’ list comprised only two links, no ‘See All’ option was included within the tile and the hidden list page was not accessible within the website. Therefore, given the hidden page highlighted by the complainant could not be accessed from anywhere within the Sayana-Press microsite on the Pfizerpro website, the page did not include prescribing information. The Panel noted Pfizer’s submission that prior to this complaint, it was not aware that Google could access the hidden list page for the Sayana-Press ‘Useful Resources’ and provide a direct link to that hidden page in its search results, instead of linking to the Sayana-Press homepage which included the ‘Useful Resources’ tile and prescribing information.

The Panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, the complainant had not shown that the page he/she had accessed was intended for health professionals. Although the Panel was concerned that material that did not appear to meet the requirements of the Code could be accessed directly via a Google search, it seemed reasonable in this case to consider it as material on a hidden company page rather than that which was intended for UK health professionals. The Panel decided that the lack of prescribing information on the hidden page did not amount to a breach of the Code as alleged. No breach was ruled.

The Panel noted that since receiving this complaint and learning of Google’s ability to return hidden list pages within its search results, Pfizer had limited the ‘Useful Resources’ list within the homepage tile to four links and had deleted all hidden list pages within the backend of the website. Pfizer had also re-indexed the website on Google to ensure that any historical links to the deleted pages were also removed. In the Panel’s view, this case illustrated that companies should exercise extreme caution and wherever possible ensure that pages which were not intended for viewing on their websites were either deleted or securely hidden from view and thus inaccessible.

Given its comments and ruling above, the Panel did not consider that Pfizer had failed to maintain high standards. No breach of the Code was ruled.