AUTH/3434/12/20 - Complainant v A.Menarini

Alleged promoting to general public on LinkedIn

  • Received
    02 December 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3434/12/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    04 June 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

A complainant who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional, complained about a press release by the Menarini Group posted on LinkedIn.

The complainant noted that the LinkedIn post had been ‘liked’ by UK-based staff and named an employee and provided a link to the named employee’s personal LinkedIn account. The complainant alleged that the LinkedIn post promoted to the public.

The detailed response from A.Menarini is given below.

The Panel noted A.Menarini’s submission that the press release in question, which had been generated and placed on the Menarini Group LinkedIn account by global colleagues, had appeared on the UK employee’s personal LinkedIn feed as he/she followed the Menarini Group. According to A.Menarini the UK employee had accidently ‘liked’ the post. The Panel considered that the UK employee’s engagement with the post, on the balance of probabilities, had proactively disseminated the material to his/her connections which would likely be a predominantly UK audience and had thus brought the LinkedIn post and associated press release within the scope of the UK Code.

The Panel considered that there was a difference between making a press release available only to the press, to be published or not, and sharing it or proactively disseminating it, albeit accidentally, on a publicly accessible social media platform with the inevitability that a wider audience would read it.

The Panel noted that the press release reported positive pharmacodynamic data for the experimental compound SEL24/MEN1703 which was being investigated for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia; the following statement was attributed to a senior executive, Menarini Ricerche:

‘We are pleased with the preliminary, positive results observed with SEL24/MEN1703, a PIM/FLT3 inhibitor under investigation for the treatment of AML. As outlined in our ASH poster presentation, the dose escalation phase of the DIAMOND-01 trial showed that SEL24/MEN1703 has a manageable safety profile and results in a meaningful target engagement in peripheral blood and bone marrow blast cells from patients treated with SEL24/MEN1703. We look forward to continuing our investigation of SEL24/MEN1703 as a potential new treatment for this aggressive and hard-to-treat cancer, as part of our commitment to develop effective innovative therapies that can make a difference in the lives of cancer patients’.

The Panel considered that it was clear from the press release that the compound was an investigational product in development, that the results were preliminary, and that further investigation of the compound was planned. The Panel noted that the product was not classified as a prescription only medicine when the LinkedIn post and associated press release at issue were ‘liked’ by the UK employee (December 2020). Clause 26.1 only applied to prescription only medicines. On that very narrow technical point the Panel ruled no breach of the Code.

The Panel understood that employees might feel inclined to endorse articles related to their senior colleagues on LinkedIn or their company’s corporate social media posts but noted that depending on the content such activity might or might not fall within the scope of the Code; companies would be well advised to cover the possibility of that activity in their social media policies. This was particularly important if UK employees were likely to follow the social media accounts of overseas affiliates which might have Codes, laws and regulations that differed to the UK.

The Panel noted that A.Menarini had a UK Internet and Social Media SOP which instructed employees not to comment, at any time, about company products on social media. A local (UK) Social Media Behaviours document, sent in September 2020, stated that in general the recommendation for social media was not to ‘like’, share or comment on anything related to the company that was produced outside an official UK channel or else that could constitute a breach of the Code. The Panel noted A.Menarini’s submission that the employee in question had been trained on the SOP in May 2017.

In the Panel’s view, it was not necessarily unacceptable for a company to refer in general terms to its pipeline products or work it was doing. However, tone, content, context, location, layout, intended audience and overall impression were important factors. The Panel queried if a social media platform such as LinkedIn was the appropriate forum to share such information. The Panel noted that one UK employee had, albeit accidentally, in contravention of company policy and his/her training, ‘liked’ the LinkedIn post by global regarding the positive results of a pharmacodynamic assay with an investigational compound under examination for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia resulting, on the balance of probabilities, in its subsequent proactive dissemination to all of his/her connections. The Panel considered that high standards had not been maintained in that regard and a breach of the Code was ruled.

Noting its comments and rulings above, the Panel considered that the particular circumstances of this case did not warrant a ruling of a breach of Clause 2 of the Code which was a sign of particular censure and reserved for such use. No breach of the Code was ruled.