AUTH/3334/4/20 - Health professional v Rayner

Journal advertisement visible to the public

  • Received
    21 April 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3334/4/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    03 July 2020
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
    Advertisement
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary


A health professional complained that he had received a postal copy of Eye News with an advertisement, placed by Rayner Pharmaceuticals Ltd, for Ilube (acetylcysteine eye drops) visible through the unopened package. The complainant alleged that this was a breach of the requirements that prohibited the promotion of prescription medicines to the public.

The detailed response from Rayner is given below.

The Panel noted that the Code required that postcards, other exposed mailings, envelopes or wrappers must not carry matter which might be regarded as advertising to the public but, as acknowledged by Rayner, an advertisement for Ilube on Eye News had been visible to the public when sent through the post. Breaches of the Code were ruled.

Rayner had chosen a bellyband format to promote Ilube but there was no evidence provided to the Panel to show that anyone in the company had questioned whether the advertisement would be visible to the public when the journal was posted. There was nothing in the media package from Eye News to suggest that bellybands would not be visible in the post and, in the Panel’s view, it was for companies to clarify the position before they agreed to use such a format for prescription medicines. The Panel was concerned to note that, prior to this complaint, Rayner did not appear to know that copies of Eye News were distributed in transparent plastic envelopes. The Panel considered that high standards had not been maintained. A breach of the Code was ruled.

Eye News was distributed to a wide range of sub-specialties within ophthalmology, it was not just aimed at prescribers and in that regard the Panel considered it likely that some of the target audience would be more interested in technology and equipment than medicines. The availability of wall planner advertising (not allowed under the Code for prescription medicines) from Eye News should have alerted Rayner to the fact that different types of products would be advertised in the journal and that it would need to ensure that the way in which its prescription only medicine was advertised met the requirements of the Code.

The Panel noted its comments and rulings above and was concerned about the lack of care and attention to detail on a matter that reflected UK law. A breach of Clause 2 was ruled.