The UK Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) has published revised social media guidance in a new dedicated section of its website, reflecting recent case precedent and the realities of an evolving digital landscape.
While “informal,” the guidance sets out the PMCPA’s current interpretation of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry (Code) as it relates to the use of social media. This blog sets out a summary of key themes in the guidance, including renewed emphasis on social media as a predominantly public channel, the risks of proactive dissemination (including through likes, tags, and resharing), and responsibility for both direct and third-party social media activities (including by influencers).
Companies are encouraged to review their policies, approval processes, and third-party arrangements to ensure they align with the updated guidance and recent PMCPA case law. The guidance notes that social media can be a useful avenue to communicate with stakeholders, and by following the principles in the guidance, companies can continue to utilize social media channels while managing reputational and regulatory risks.
The Updated Guidance
One of the most important features of the update is structural rather than substantive. The guidance has been reorganized to help users find answers quickly, and it incorporates Q&As and links to prior cases to provide practical examples of how the panel has ruled in relevant cases. The PMCPA has also indicated that the guidance will be updated regularly; this is important as one of the biggest risks for companies is not related to updates to the Code or PMCPA guidance, but from changes in platform functionality, audience behavior, and the way information is reshared and amplified.
Key Requirements and Regulatory Principles
Social media is defined broadly to encompass a broad range of interactive technologies that “focus on user-generated content, content sharing, interaction, and communication among virtual communities and networks.” The PMCPA notes that this definition will continue to evolve with technology, and companies must understand the wider principles applicable to social media and the Code.
The guidance reiterates several fundamental legal and ethical principles for pharmaceutical companies engaging with social media. These core principles apply regardless of the platform or media being used. However, there are particular risks related to these principles when companies use social media channels. For example:
- Prohibition on Promotion to the Public: UK (and EU) law expressly prohibits advertising prescription-only medicines to the public, as well as promotion of medicines prior to marketing authorization. Social media platforms are generally considered public channels, so companies must be careful when posting content related to medicinal products or treatment options that could be seen as promotional. In-house teams will recognize this as a settled principle, but the guidance reinforces how easily social media content can be seen as “proactive dissemination” and therefore promotional, even where the company’s intention is informational.
- Control of Third-Party Content: Companies are responsible for content disseminated by the company but also by third parties that represent the company or act on its behalf. This can be difficult to manage on social media platforms where interactions are usually fast-paced, and the guidance notes that ownership, preview, and the ability to withdraw content must be addressed in written agreements with third parties.
- Staff Use of Social Media: Personal use of social media by company staff or third parties may overlap with professional responsibilities. Companies are liable if individuals can reasonably be perceived as representing the company or are instructed, approved, or facilitated by the company. Policies and regular training are advised for all business functions.
- Due Diligence and Monitoring: Companies must conduct due diligence on linked content, hashtags, and tagged accounts to ensure compliance and appropriateness. Engaging with content (e.g., liking or reposting third-party content) may constitute active dissemination and must adhere to the Code. The PMCPA expects reasonable, documented checks before linking, tagging, or using hashtags.
Guidance for Key Activities
The new guidance sets out specific information on certain activities that frequently come up in the case law. For example:
- Investor and media communications: Many companies use social media channels to highlight investor-relevant developments or corporate results. The guidance highlights the inherent complexity of using open, public platforms for communications intended for specialist audiences. The guidance suggests that the post itself should not name a medicine, even if the linked content (for example, a press release or annual report) can lawfully refer to medicines provided it is factual, balanced, and non-promotional. Example wording is provided in the guidance.
- Disease awareness and patient support material: The guidance notes that social media can be an important channel for communicating with the public, where the content is appropriate for that audience. Disease awareness campaigns can be conducted via social media, provided that the purpose is to increase awareness of a disease and encourage members of the public to visit their health professional to seek treatment. Similarly, companies can use social media to host information for patients who have been prescribed a specific medicine, but these should not be available through a general search; for example, a video hosted in the non-public sections of YouTube accessible via a URL shared with patients. The target audience should be clearly identified, and the content should be appropriate for that audience.
- Use of influencers: The guidance underlines that companies are responsible for the acts and omissions of third parties acting on their behalf, including agencies and consultants, and this includes paid influencers and digital opinion leaders. Transparency must be clear and immediate, and generic conventions such as “#ad” may not be sufficient where this does not clearly explain the extent of company involvement. Influencer engagements should be treated like any other consultancy arrangement under the Code, with robust due diligence, clear written agreements, appropriate approval and certification processes where required, and active monitoring during (and, depending on circumstances, after) the contractual period.
- Clinical trial recruitment: The guidance refers to the recent memorandum of understanding between the ABPI, PMCPA, and the Health Research Authority (HRA), effective February 1, 2026, under which participant-facing recruitment material that has been ethics committee approved will be regulated by the HRA, and not the PMCPA. The guidance also notes that companies are not required to certify ethics committee-approved recruitment posts under the ABPI Code.
To manage these risks, there are some common recommendations in the guidance. For example, there is renewed focus on “signposting” as a key compliance tool. Signposting allows companies to direct an audience to information without communicating that information directly. The guidance emphasizes that where information is intended only for a specified audience (such as UK health professionals, investors, or journalists), companies should make the audience clear at the outset and require the viewer to take active steps to access the information. This may include self-attestation (for example, confirming health professional status) and clear redirection for those who are not the intended audience. Example wording is also provided.
Pharmacovigilance reporting is also highlighted as an area to monitor. Companies should have procedures to monitor activity within their control and to identify and report adverse events. The guidance recognizes that disabling comments or messages may be a risk-management option on some platforms, but where interaction is permitted, companies need community guidelines and a workable monitoring framework that fits the scale of their activity and the functionality of the platform used.
How Does This Compare with Guidance in Other Countries?
In Europe, many national codes, including the ABPI Code, build on (or mirror) the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations’ (EFPIA) “Principles for the use of digital channels” in the annex to the EFPIA Code. This annex is frequently referenced by national self-regulators when assessing social media content. In addition, some countries have a standalone “digital channels” guide, while others embed digital/social media rules into the general code. For example:
- France: The French Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) published in 2014 a detailed charter for the communication and promotion of health products on the Internet and e-media. The charter includes a specific section addressing open social networks alongside broader online promotion/communication rules (e.g., links, targeting/access restrictions, forums, etc.). More recently, the ANSM indicated that its assessment of advertisements posted on social media is evolving and adaptable depending on the social media platform and the constant changes observed in the presentation of content, in particular with respect to sponsored content (see, for example, this report from November 2023).
- Sweden: Sweden’s industry association (Lif) has issued guidelines titled Use of digital channels, explaining how Sweden’s ethical rules apply to common digital channels (including social media) and differentiating communications to the public compared to healthcare professionals.
- Netherlands: The Netherlands’ self-regulatory body (CGR) maintains the Code of Conduct for Pharmaceutical Advertising, which covers digital communications/channels as part of the overall advertising framework (rather than as a separate social media guide). The CGR position is that the principles that apply “offline” also apply “online,” meaning that social media posts must comply with the CGR Code. CGR also maintains an advice/precedent function that can be helpful in interpreting digital activity.
- Germany: Germany’s FSA publishes its code on interaction with healthcare professionals, which applies across channels and is used in practice to assess digital communications directed at professional audiences. There is also case law from the German courts on the use of social media. For example, in a recent decision, the court notes that paid content posted by an influencer means that the influencer will be seen as an agent of the company so that the company becomes liable for the influencer’s actions.
- Spain: The Spanish innovative medicinal products industry association Farmaindustria has issued a code of practice, which includes guidance on the use of social media for the advertising of medicinal products. In particular, the code emphasizes that companies remain responsible for content disseminated through, or linked from, social media channels they control or finance, and it requires the implementation of internal digital conduct guidelines, employee training, and monitoring procedures.
The UK PMCPA is one of the more prolific national bodies, publishing guidance that goes beyond the EFPIA and ABPI Codes and providing more practical and specific recommendations for companies. As the principles should be similar across the European Union, the new PMCPA guidance can be used as useful guidance in other countries in the absence of specific national guidance.