CASE/0999/06/26 - Voluntary admission by Sanofi

VOLUNTARY ADMISSION BY SANOFI

Voluntary admission about the recertification of a video

Sanofi made a voluntary admission about a video which was still in use but had not been appropriately recertified. The video was hosted on a non-promotional disease education website owned by Sanofi.

Clause 8.5 required that material which is still in use must be recertified at intervals of no more than two years to ensure that it continues to conform with the relevant regulations relating to advertising and the Code.

Sanofi identified that the certification of the video had expired on 4 March 2026, some three months prior.

Sanofi’s investigation identified that the issue had occurred following the departure of company personnel without appropriate material reassignment. Sanofi confirmed that there was a framework in place to ensure compliant management of materials post-approval and further targeted training was being rolled out as a result of the error.

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.

Sanofi accepted a breach of Clause 8.5 of the Code and provided the required undertaking and assurances.

The outcome under the 2024 Code of Practice was:

VOLUNTARY ADMISSION BY SANOFI

Voluntary admission about the recertification of a video

Sanofi made a voluntary admission about a video which was still in use but had not been appropriately recertified. The video was hosted on a non-promotional disease education website owned by Sanofi.

Clause 8.5 required that material which is still in use must be recertified at intervals of no more than two years to ensure that it continues to conform with the relevant regulations relating to advertising and the Code.

Sanofi identified that the certification of the video had expired on 4 March 2026, some three months prior.

Sanofi’s investigation identified that the issue had occurred following the departure of company personnel without appropriate material reassignment. Sanofi confirmed that there was a framework in place to ensure compliant management of materials post-approval and further targeted training was being rolled out as a result of the error.

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.

Sanofi accepted a breach of Clause 8.5 of the Code and provided the required undertaking and assurances.

The outcome under the 2024 Code of Practice was: