ACCC takes Voltaren makers to court over ‘misleading’ arthritis pain relief claims

THE consumer watchdog is sore about arthritis claims made by Voltaren, which could be facing a repeat of Nurofen’s $6 million headache.

ROD Sims is not mad, just “disappointed”.

A year after slugging Nurofen with a $6 million fine for misleading claims about targeted pain relief, the head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is taking aim at the makers of Voltaren for exactly the same issue.

The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, alleging the drugmakers misled consumers in the marketing of Voltaren Emulgel and Osteo Gel pain relief products.

Osteo Gel is marketed as being formulated for treating osteoarthritis conditions — but as in the Nurofen case, both products contain the same active ingredient, diclofenac diethylammonium gel 11.6mg/g.

While the recommended retail price of Osteo Gel 150 is $3 more expensive than Emulgel 150g at $28.99 compared with $25.99, the ACCC said the former was found in-store at a mark-up of up to $7.50, or 33 per cent.

“We’re so disappointed that having taken the Nurofen case, with all of the publicity around it, that we find this sort of behaviour still continuing,” Mr Sims said.

ACCC boss Rod Sims. Picture: Josie Hayden

Mr Sims said if the ACCC won the case, the watchdog would be seeking an even higher penalty than against Nurofen. “If we’re successful, we’d be looking at trying to get an even stronger deterrence message out there” he said.

“[The behaviour] continued on after the Nurofen judgment so I think the message needs to be given even more strongly.”

Mr Sims said the ACCC was also concerned that the products were targeted at older consumers. “We’re always concerned with conduct that affects consumers who could be seen as slightly more vulnerable,” he said.

“What was happening here is that they were saying you’ve got a product that is specifically formulated for treating osteoarthritis, particularly in the knees and fingers, and indeed saying that also it’s more effective than Emulgel.

“Our concerns were not only that consumers were paying more for Osteo Gel, but they could actually buy both products and have them in their medical cabinet, thinking they treat different things.”

GSK acquired the Voltaren brand from Novartis in 2016 but the products have been sold since 2010. In March this year, GSK amended the Osteo Gel packaging to include the statement, “Same effective formula as Voltaren Emulgel”, but the ACCC alleges the amended packaging is also likely to be misleading.

In a statement, a Novartis spokeswoman said, “As the ACCC has stated, in 2016 GSK acquired Novartis’ portfolio of Voltaren products and has been responsible for marketing and selling Voltaren products since that time. Novartis is aware of the ACCC proceedings and suggest that all enquiries should be directed to GSK.”

A GSK spokeswoman said the company was “disappointed the ACCC has decided to commence proceedings against us”. “We have been cooperating with them and proactively trying to understand their concerns related to our products, however to date they have not provided clarity about the basis for their concern,” she said.

“Our experience tells us that people self-select pain relief (OTC medicines) based on their symptoms and/or a healthcare professional’s recommendation. We believe the case of Voltaren Osteo Gel 1 per cent is an example of this.

“While it contains the same effective formulation as Voltaren Emulgel, we believe the design of the packaging helps people with osteoarthritis open the cap more easily and the instructions for use reflect the TGA approved instructions for use in osteoarthritis. We were of the view the product name reflects this.

“Recent actions by the ACCC provided greater clarity around the expectations of industry regulators and consumers.

“We responded to this and proactively made changes to Voltaren Osteo Gel 1 per cent packs to make it clearer that the formulation is the same as Voltaren Emulgel and to seek to ensure we continue to meet the expectations of regulators and consumers.”

[e-mail]