Suspicions of illegal advertising: Employee pharmacist finally acquitted

A salaried pharmacist has just been acquitted by the Disciplinary Council of the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec (OPQ) regarding a 2018 complaint of illegal advertising.Giovanni Di Genova, a salaried pharmacist at Linda Frayne Pharmaciens Inc. in Montreal, was accused of promoting the use of LessDrops® and DropLess® ophthalmic preparations, prepared in his pharmacy and of which he was also the preferred distributor through Advanced Dosage Forms Inc. (ADF), at two ophthalmology conferences between 2018 and 2020.According to the OPQ trustee, Bernard Deshaies, the salaried pharmacist thus violated an advertising standard, namely Article 95 of the Pharmacists' Code of Ethics, which states that, "A pharmacist must refrain from advertising, or permitting the advertising of, a medication referred to in any of Schedules I, II, or IV of the Regulation respecting the terms and conditions for the sale of medications, or allowing it to be advertised in his or her name."'A closed-loop operating system'On the one hand, Di Genova claims to have participated in ophthalmologist conferences, "with the aim of informing the medical community about the advantages and benefits of the preparations over which his company holds distribution rights."On the other hand, the trustee's complaint is based on the fact that ADF, of which Di Genova is the sole director and shareholder, enjoys exclusive marketing rights in Canada for the preparations of LessDrops—various combinations of prednisolone, nepafenac and/or moxifloxacin in the form of an ophthalmic suspension—and DropLess—a sterile injectable suspension of triamcinolone and moxifloxacin—pursuant to an agreement entered into with the American company Imprimis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Moreover, at the time of the events, Frayne Pharmacy was the sole compounding pharmacy for LessDrops and DropLess, pursuant to an agreement with ADF.During the hearing, the trustee denounced, “the existence of a closed-loop operating system: a single ADF licence holder belonging to (Di Genova) who, coincidentally, is a pharmacist at the only Frayne compounding pharmacy.”According to him, the pharmacist's motives were financial and not scientific or altruistic, as evidenced by his business cards, his annual salary of $120,000 paid by Frayne Pharmacy, his representation activities with doctors, hockey tickets to see two Montreal Canadiens games each year, and cell phone charges that he bills the pharmacy.A community pharmacy like no otherIn its decision of Aug. 13, 2025, the council noted several factors. First, the fact that the Frayne pharmacy is not strictly speaking a community pharmacy. Located on the fourth floor of a downtown building, authorization is required to access the reception desk, the minutes state.According to the trustee, it is more of a, "compounding pharmacy that manufactures prescription-based magistral products that are not commercially available." It therefore does not serve the general public, but only patients with a specific prescription. The council noted that this constitutes no violation of the Code of Ethics.However, the trustee is keen to point out that, even though they work in a compounding pharmacy, pharmacists are subject to the same ethical requirements as those working in a traditional community pharmacy.What about the promotional brochures for DropLess and LessDrops preparations found by the trustee on the counter of the Frayne pharmacy during his surprise visit in 2019? Again, there was no violation, since they are not available to the general public, even though, in his opinion, they appear to be aimed at both ophthalmologists and their patients. Di Genova defended himself by saying that it was simply a translation error, since the original brochures were American and could therefore be aimed at both doctors and patients. He nevertheless pointed out that the contact details for the Frayne pharmacy and Imprimis had since been removed from the brochures.Opinions differ on Di Genova's activities within this pharmacy. For the trustee, he is clearly engaged in “canvassing,” meeting with other pharmacists and doctors to offer them his ophthalmic solutions—distributed by ADF and prepared at the Frayne pharmacy. Trustee Deshaies based his argument on correspondence in which the salaried pharmacist suggested to a colleague in Gatineau that she, “approach a local ophthalmology clinic to suggest that patients purchase LessDrops locally,” including a prescription template and a treatment adherence form for the patient.‘A lost art’For the pharmacist owner, however, Di Genova is the main link between his compounding pharmacy and doctors, pharmacists and clinics, an argument echoed by the man himself. “Since the pharmacy opened 27 years ago, my role as a representative has been to inform doctors and other healthcare professionals about the services and medications prepared by the pharmacy,” confirmed Di Genova.“This type of practice is a lost art. I share information to advance knowledge. I educate healthcare professionals about what a compounded preparation entails.”That's what he did, he said, at the two ophthalmology conferences for medical specialists.According to the salaried pharmacist, his presence as an ADF representative, “allows ophthalmologists participating in the conferences to learn about the preparations and possibly prescribe them, since they are not available in retail pharmacies.”Despite the trustee's arguments, the council considered that these conferences cannot support the accusation of illegal advertising, since they are reserved exclusively for ophthalmologists. This conclusion was supported by the observations of an expert commissioned to document the legal aspects of the case, according to whom, “advertising or promoting a drug is permitted in Canada when it is directed exclusively at healthcare professionals.”No evidence of ‘incompatible or prohibited’ activitiesTherefore, while reiterating that the promotion of a drug or medical treatment to the general public is prohibited, the council conceded that it has, “no evidence demonstrating that the respondent's multiple professional activities are incompatible or prohibited.”The trustee also said that the pharmacist used his professional title to solicit business and is therefore, “not independent,” but also acknowledges that Article 95 of the Code of Ethics does not apply in the context of these two conferences. However, he believes that, “The most concerning issue is that the preparations end up being prepared in the pharmacy that employs the respondent.”Di Genova's lawyer argued that his client does not have to hide the fact that he is a pharmacist, as this gives him additional credibility with doctors. “There is no evidence of encouragement to purchase, promotion or interventionism,” he added. However, the initial complaint did not concern an accusation of interventionism, but rather illegal advertising on the part of the pharmacist. Hence the council's decision to acquit him on this count.

Suspicions of illegal advertising: Employee pharmacist finally acquitted

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics

Business Topic