Vice President Joshua White Considers Role of Denigration in Competition Analysis at CompLaw Pharma

December 19, 2025

Analysis Group Vice President Joshua White participated in “Denigration: Implications of Teva and Vifor,” a panel at the CompLaw Pharma conference in Brussels. The session was moderated by Anne Robert (Sidley) and featured panelists Jacob Westin (Sandoz AG), Despoina Samara (GSK), and Aileen Murtagh (Biomarin). The discussion explored the emerging theory of denigration as a form of exclusionary abuse, drawing on the recent cases CSL Vifor and Teva, and considered their broader implications for the life sciences sector.

Mr. White opened by summarizing key elements of the European Commission’s commitments decision in CSL Vifor, which followed an investigation in which Analysis Group advised the company, and then discussed the parallel decision by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority. The debate then turned to what constitutes objectively reliable evidence in company communications relating to safety and efficacy of medications. On that topic, Mr. White reflected on the European Commission’s preference for randomized controlled trials and underscored the resulting tension with medicines regulators over the role and reliability of real-world evidence (RWE). He noted that RWE is increasingly recognized across the pharmaceutical industry as a key source of information on safety signals, usage patterns, long-term outcomes, and treatment effectiveness. Mr. White added that limiting the ability to communicate based on RWE may constrain the flow of valuable information to health care professionals. He also emphasized the growing importance of rigorous health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) analyses to ensure that RWE is generated and interpreted in a scientifically robust manner.

Mr. White concluded by noting that the stricter advertising rules in the proposed EU pharmaceutical package may encourage a more effects-based approach to denigration cases. He stressed the inherent ambiguity in disparagement cases and highlighted that even scientifically supported communications by an incumbent may constitute an abuse in certain circumstances, according to the current approach of competition authorities. He therefore emphasized the need for a careful assessment of both the potential and the actual impact of communications on competition.