CASE/0479/02/25 - Complainant v GSK

Case Summary

CASE/0479/02/25                                                     ABRIDGED PROCEDURE

COMPLAINANT V GSK

Allegations about a job advertisement on LinkedIn

This case was in relation to a job advertisement by GSK, posted on the LinkedIn Jobs page. The complainant alleged that GSK was advertising and promoting jobs which included the product brand name and indication.

The complainant was non-contactable and described themselves as a health professional.
The complainant gave an example of a job advertisement which included the product name, Benlysta, in the job title of the advertised role, and the claim “As the only company with a biological treatment, BENLYSTA, approved for lupus and lupus nephritis, GSK is leading the way in helping patients manage this chronic, inflammatory autoimmune disease. This is an exciting time for BENLYSTA, as we continue to deliver innovative new science to transform and improve the long-term treatment paradigm and patient outcomes.”

The case preparation manager considered that the complaint met the criteria for the abridged complaints procedure as it was likely, in their view, that there had been a breach of the Code, it appeared that the central facts would not be disputed, and the allegation fell within the PMCPA’s approved list for use of the abridged procedure.

The job advertisement, which mentioned the brand name, Benlysta, six times and included the product indication, could not be seen as anything other than promotional. On the balance of probabilities, not all of the readers of the advertisement on LinkedIn would meet the Code’s definition of a health professional or other relevant decision maker and therefore the information had likely also been made available to members of the public.

GSK accepted a breach of Clauses 26.1 and 5.1 of the Code and provided the required undertaking and assurances.

The outcome under the 2024 Code of Practice was:

Breach of Clause 26.1	Promoting a prescription only medicine to the public
Breach of Clause 5.1	Failing to maintain high standards

 

Complaint received    11 February 2025

Case completed        11 April 2025

CASE/0479/02/25                                                     ABRIDGED PROCEDURE

COMPLAINANT V GSK

Allegations about a job advertisement on LinkedIn

This case was in relation to a job advertisement by GSK, posted on the LinkedIn Jobs page. The complainant alleged that GSK was advertising and promoting jobs which included the product brand name and indication.

The complainant was non-contactable and described themselves as a health professional.
The complainant gave an example of a job advertisement which included the product name, Benlysta, in the job title of the advertised role, and the claim “As the only company with a biological treatment, BENLYSTA, approved for lupus and lupus nephritis, GSK is leading the way in helping patients manage this chronic, inflammatory autoimmune disease. This is an exciting time for BENLYSTA, as we continue to deliver innovative new science to transform and improve the long-term treatment paradigm and patient outcomes.”

The case preparation manager considered that the complaint met the criteria for the abridged complaints procedure as it was likely, in their view, that there had been a breach of the Code, it appeared that the central facts would not be disputed, and the allegation fell within the PMCPA’s approved list for use of the abridged procedure.

The job advertisement, which mentioned the brand name, Benlysta, six times and included the product indication, could not be seen as anything other than promotional. On the balance of probabilities, not all of the readers of the advertisement on LinkedIn would meet the Code’s definition of a health professional or other relevant decision maker and therefore the information had likely also been made available to members of the public.

GSK accepted a breach of Clauses 26.1 and 5.1 of the Code and provided the required undertaking and assurances.

The outcome under the 2024 Code of Practice was:

Breach of Clause 26.1	Promoting a prescription only medicine to the public
Breach of Clause 5.1	Failing to maintain high standards

 

Complaint received    11 February 2025

Case completed        11 April 2025