The American pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly has received a severe reprimand in the Netherlands from the Code Committee of the Foundation for the Code of Pharmaceutical Advertising (CGR). According to the committee, the pharmaceutical giant disseminated misleading and inaccurate information about its obesity drug Mounjaro. The case was triggered by a complaint from competitor Novo Nordisk, manufacturer of, among others, Wegovy and Ozempic. Andr茅 den Exter, Associate Professor of Health Law at Erasmus School of Law, noted in the Financieele Dagblad that it is striking for two major pharmaceutical companies to clash publicly in this way.
An exceptional sanction
The CGR concluded that Eli Lilly had repeatedly crossed the line. For example, communications to doctors suggested that Mounjaro was more effective than a competing product, without this claim being scientifically substantiated. In addition, patients were approached with promotional material, including a tape measure and a brochure in which the product name appeared conspicuously and repeatedly. The CGR classified these communications as impermissible public advertising.
In its ruling, the CGR not only ordered Eli Lilly to cease these activities, but also to send a correction letter to general practitioners. The latter is exceptional: usually the publication of the ruling suffices. Eli Lilly has, however, accepted the decision and sent the letters.
Self-regulation in the pharmaceutical sector
The CGR is a self-regulatory body within the pharmaceutical industry. This means that companies in the sector have voluntarily committed themselves to a shared code of conduct, which is enforced by an independent committee. On the question of whether the obligation to issue a correction reflects on the effectiveness of this system, Den Exter is clear: 鈥淭his ruling in itself says nothing about the effectiveness of self-regulation. Several similar rulings are issued each year.鈥 He explains: 鈥淭he obligation to issue a correction has been complied with in this case, and that could be taken as an indication that parties respect the ruling.鈥
Public interest in pharmaceutical advertising
Although this procedure was initiated by competitor Novo Nordisk, the broader public interest also plays a role. Den Exter points out that this is always relevant: 鈥淢isleading advertising is simply prohibited.鈥 Promotional statements about medicines must always be accurate and reliable. Misleading information can not only distort competition but also affect the decision-making of doctors and patients.
A low-threshold complaints procedure
It is notable that not only pharmaceutical companies can file complaints with the CGR. 鈥淎ccording to the Rules for Compliance with Pharmaceutical Advertising, anyone may submit a complaint,鈥 Den Exter explains. 鈥淭he procedure is low-threshold: legal representation by a lawyer is not required, although an administrative fee must be paid.鈥 This opens the way for doctors and even patients who believe that advertising statements are misleading.
A signaling effect
Ultimately, the ruling underlines that self-regulation within the pharmaceutical sector is not without consequence. Even though the CGR is not a government body, it can intervene in cases of violations with measures that have tangible consequences for companies. The enforcement of imposed corrections demonstrates that the rules of conduct are taken seriously in practice, and that the sector is capable of calling itself to order effectively when necessary.
- Associate professor
- More information
Click to read Den Exter鈥檚 contribution in the Financieele Dagblad.
- Related content
- Related education
