Hello @nivanov
The section in question (6.6) has been revised and rolled into section 1.5 Materials not Subject to Preclearance of the PAAB Code

Thank you for identifying the old number. We will update the document accordingly.

Hello @kalli,

If the intent of the message is to promote a company sponsored service/offering linked to a brand, and is created and controlled by the sponsor, it is likely subject to advertising regulations regardless of branding elements within the edirect specifically. Remember that when we link advertising and non-advertising, everything becomes advertising. Similarly, when we link branded and unbranded, everything becomes branded.

Hello @hollymed

The PAAB does not require that meta-descriptors for webpages be used. We merely require to review them when they are used. On a side note, there may be reasons to use them (or some other meta data) post gate. For example, some implementations of intra-site(post-gate) search would employ these. But as you’ve pointed out, you’d need to make sure that no content beyond name/price/qty appears in external (e.g. Google) search results. That would be a matter of setting the appropriate robot text. Hope that helps.

Hey @AnetteCPC

Multiple factors can potentially come into play. But the most frequent determinant tends to be whether the video is embedded in the website and is ONLY accessible on the submitted website page, then it can be submitted as part of the same review. If the video can be downloaded, shared or in some way consumed where it is not on the reviewed webpage and complete website, it requires a separate submission. Remember that APS are reviewed as a whole as there may be content on the page or website which creates context for the video, which the video alone may not contain.

@Jennifer-Carroll Would you agree that this unique URL provided by the physician to the patient should not contain any keywords that could allow patients to find the website while doing a search for the disease state or the product in question?