AUTH/3385/9/20 - Complainant v Janssen

Concerns regarding Janssen Response website

  • Received
    09 September 2020
  • Case number
  • Applicable Code year
  • Completed
    16 February 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

A contactable complainant, who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional, complained about Janssen’s Response website ( The landing page of the website contained links to the prescribing information for Xeplion and Trevicta which were alternative formulations of paliperidone for injection, used in the treatment of schizophrenia.

The complainant noted that when he/she clicked on the links to prescribing information, a statement appeared to the effect that he/she was being directed to a third party website, however, the website to which he/she was directed was another owned and controlled by Janssen. More importantly, this required a further click to link to the prescribing information which was one more than was allowed.

The detailed response from Janssen is given below.

The Panel noted Janssen’s submission that regional business managers provided a link to the Janssen Response website and log-in credentials to health professionals who were interested in the scheme and had completed the enrolment form. The scheme closed to new patients on 1 April 2020. The Panel noted that the Janssen Response scheme website landing page (the webpage at issue) could be accessed by selecting the appropriate link after a web search for ‘Janssen Response’. Only health professionals with log-in credentials could enter the website past the landing page.

The top left-hand side of the landing page included links to the prescribing information for Xeplion and Trevicta.

The Panel noted that to access the prescribing information from the Janssen Response website landing page, users could click on the relevant links and were presented with a disclaimer webpage and would need to click on the ‘Go to link’ on this webpage. In doing so users were directed from the Janssen Response site to a different Janssen owned site to access the prescribing information. It was therefore not accurate for the disclaimer to state that viewers were being directed to a third-party website. The Panel therefore ruled a breach of the Code.

As two clicks were required, to access the prescribing information a further breach was ruled. The Panel ruled no breach of the Code as it did not consider that the particular circumstances of this case meant that high standards had not been maintained.