AUTH/3349/5/20 and AUTH/3350/5/20 - Anonymous v Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer

Declaration of sponsorship on a patient organisation video

  • Received
    22 May 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3349/5/20 and AUTH/3350/5/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    18 January 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary


An anonymous, contactable complainant who described him/herself as a member of the public, complained that the fact that a patient organisation’s video, on the organisation’s YouTube channel, was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies was only revealed at the end of the video and not clearly acknowledged at the outset. The Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance was listed as one of the sponsors.

The complainant further noted that the YouTube video information which showed the text accompanying the video did not mention the support from the pharmaceutical companies. The patient organisation homepage banner which linked to the YouTube channel, did not mention the support of the pharmaceutical companies.

The detailed response from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer is given below.

The Panel noted that the complainant was concerned that, contrary to the requirements of the Code, it was not immediately obvious that a podcast video on a patient organisation’s YouTube channel was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies; the complainant had submitted that involvement of the companies had only been revealed at the end of the 33-minute video.

The Panel noted that whilst it appeared from the screenshots provided by the Alliance and downloaded by the case preparation manager that the Alliance’s sponsorship was declared in the static text beneath the video on the landing page when reaching YouTube, it queried whether the font size was sufficient for the information about sponsorship to be obvious to the viewer. Further, on the screenshot provided by the complainant the declaration was missing from the text below the video on the landing page and on the banner on the patient organisation’s website linking to the video. The Panel considered that on the balance of evidence before it, when the complainant viewed the video and submitted the complaint the Alliance’s sponsorship of the video had not been declared such that viewers would have been aware of it at the outset. A breach of the Code was ruled.

The Panel noted that whilst a written agreement between the parties, which referred to the need to declare the companies’ sponsorship, was in place, in the Panel’s view it was not clear within the agreement that sponsorship must be clearly acknowledged and apparent from the start and, on balance, a beach of the Code was ruled.

The Panel noted its comments and rulings above and considered that high standards had not been maintained. A breach of the Code was ruled.

The Panel noted its comments and rulings above and did not consider that the particular circumstances of this case warranted a ruling of a breach of Clause 2 and no breach was ruled.