GSK and Novartis misled consumers with Voltaren Osteo Gel claims
The Federal Court has found GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Australia Pty Ltd (GSK) and Novartis Consumer Health Australasia Pty Ltd (Novartis) breached Australian Consumer Law by making false or misleading representations in the marketing of Voltaren Osteo Gel and Voltaren Emulgel pain relief products.
The Court found that from January 2012 to March 2017, Novartis and then GSK, marketed Osteo Gel as being specifically formulated and more effective than Emulgel in treating osteoarthritis related pain and inflammation. In fact, Osteo Gel and Emulgel products are essentially the same.
An ACCC investigation found that despite having the same active ingredients, Osteo Gel was often sold at a significantly higher retail price than Emulgel. For example, Osteo Gel 150g cost 33 per cent more than Emulgel 150g in some stores.
“Novartis and GSK misled osteoarthritis sufferers into buying the more expensive Osteo Gel thinking that it was more effective than Emulgel for treating their symptoms, when this is not the case,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
The claims were made on product packaging and the Voltaren website by both companies and Novartis also made the claims on the My Joint Health website.
“This decision serves as a warning to all businesses that misleading consumers into thinking that products are specifically formulated to treat or target certain conditions when this is not the case can lead to serious consequences,” Ms Court added.
“Novartis and GSK’s conduct continued after the ACCC’s successful action against the makers of Nurofen for similar conduct involving its pain relief products. In this case both gels are identical and are equally effective in treating osteoarthritis symptoms and a range of other pain conditions.”
In March 2017 GSK amended the Osteo Gel packaging to include the words “Same effective formula as Voltaren Emulgel”. The Court found that while clearer wording would have been preferable, these additional words and other changes made to the packaging meant that the same misleading representations were not made.
A hearing will be held at a later date to determine penalties sought by the ACCC.