ADIA is the peak business organisation representing manufacturers and suppliers of dental products. Our vision is for an industry that empowers oral health professionals to advance the health and wellbeing of all Australians...................... — ADIA Strategic Plan

Membership > ADIA Code of Practice > Complaints - Past determinations > Code Determinations

.

ADIA Code of Practice — Complaint determinations

The Australian Dental Industry Association (ADIA) publishes a code of practice that seeks to preserve the independence of decision-making by healthcare professionals by ensuring that it is not compromised by inappropriate promotion.

ADIA receives complaints alleging member businesses undertake marketing and / or promotional activities in a matter with the code and the outcome of these as determined by the ADIA-CCC Code Complaints Committee can be found via the link below:

Determined — Complaint Summary —
.

12 October 2017
[Reference 010]

Member:

Summary:

SDI Limited

That in advertising literature associated with its “End of Year Specials” email promotion in June 2017, SDI Limited was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchased products they were eligible to receive (by means other than purchase) goods in the form of Apple computing products including an iWatch, iPhone, iPad or Macbook with the value of the good/s rising in a manner that was commensurate with the value of the dental products purchase. [Read More]

Outcome: Under Appeal — The complaint was upheld. Pursuant to Clause 9.2.5 of the Code a fine of $10,000 was imposed. [Read More]
12 October 2017
[Reference 010]

Member:

Summary:

Geistlich Pharma Australia

That in advertising literature associated with its “Shape Up Your Practice” competition through June – September 2017, Geistlich Pharma Australia was conducting the competition in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, a requirement of entry into the competition was the ordering of therapeutic products. [Read More]

Outcome:

The complaint was upheld and in circumstances where the competition has ceased, and Geistlich Pharma Australia had committed to discontinuing the campaign, no penalty was applied. It was noted that Geistlich Pharma Australia acknowledged and apologised for the oversight in conducting the competition in a manner inconsistent with the Code. [Read More]

9 March 2017
[Reference 009]

Member:

Summary:

Henry Schein Halas

That in advertising literature associated with its July/ August 2016 sales, Henry Schein Halas was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchased products they were eligible to receive (by means other than purchase) white goods including an a juicer, cooker, air fryer and air purifier with the value of the good/s rising in a manner that was commensurate with the value of the dental products purchase. [Read More]

Determination:

The complaint was upheld and Henry Schein Halas were instructed to discontinue promotional activities of this nature. [Read More]

9 Mar 2017
[Reference: 008]

Member:

Summary:

SDI Limited

That in advertising literature associated with its November/December 2016 sales, SDI Limited was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchased products they were eligible to receive (by means other than purchase) goods in the form of Apple computing products including an iWatch, iPhone, iPad or Macbook with the value of the good/s rising in a manner that was commensurate with the value of the dental products purchase. [Read More]

Outcome:

The complaint was upheld and SDI were instructed to discontinue promotional activities of this nature. [Read More]

9 Mar 2017
[Reference: 007]

Member:

Summary:

Independent Dental Supplies

That in advertising literature associated with its December 2016 (Online and print special catalogue, page 2) sales, Independent Dental Supplies was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchased products they were eligible to receive (by means other than purchase) gift cards with the value of the gift card rising in a manner that was commensurate with the value of the dental products purchase. [Read More]

Outcome:

The complaint was upheld and Independent Dental Supplies were instructed to discontinue promotional activities of this nature. [Read More]

9 Mar 2017
[Reference: 006]

Member:

Summary:

Independent Dental Supplies

That in advertising literature associated with its December 2016 (Online and print specials catalogue, page 35) sales, Independent Dental Supplies was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, a dental professional purchases small equipment they were eligible to receive a discount in the form of dental goods, that is an ESCom Starter Kit (ie. a medical device and not consumer goods). [Read More]

Outcome:

The activity, the subject of the compliant, was not inconsistent with the Code. [Read More]

9 March 2017
[Reference: 005]

Member:

Summary:

Henry Schein Halas

That in advertising literature associated with its June, November and December 2016 sales, Henry Schein Halas was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchases consumables and small equipment they were eligible to receive a gift in the form of white goods, home entertainment products and computing products with the value of the gift rising in a manner that was commensurate with amount of money spent. [Read More]

Outcome: The activity, the subject of the compliant, was not inconsistent with the Code. [Read More]

.
9 Mar 2017
[Reference: 004]

.
Member:

Summary:

.
SDI Limited

That in advertising literature associated with its March 2016 sales, SDI Limited was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchased products they were eligible to receive (by means other than purchase) goods in the form of Apple computing products including an iWatch, iPhone, iPad or Macbook with the value of the good/s rising in a manner that was commensurate with the value of the dental products purchase. [Read More]

Outcome:

The activity, the subject of the compliant, was not inconsistent with the Code. [Read More]

2 Nov 2016
[Reference: 003]

Member:

Summary:

Henry Schein Halas

That in advertising literature associated with its May and June 2016 sales, Henry Schein Halas was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchases consumables and small equipment they were eligible to receive a gift in the form of white goods, home entertainment products and computing products including a Macbook with the value of the gift rising in a manner that was commensurate with amount of money spent. [Read More]

Outcome:

The activity, the subject of the compliant, was not inconsistent with the Code. [Read More]

2 Nov 2016
[Reference: 002]

Member:

Summary:

Henry Schein Halas

That in advertising literature associated with its March 2016 sales, Henry Schein Halas was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchases consumables and small equipment they were eligible to receive a gift in the form of white goods, home entertainment products and computing products including a Macbook with the value of the gift rising in a manner that was commensurate with amount of money spent. [Read More]

Outcome:

The activity, the subject of the compliant, was not inconsistent with the Code. [Read More]

.
9 May 2016
[Reference: 001]

.
Member:

Summary:

.
SDI Limited

That in advertising literature associated with its November and December 2015 sales, SDI Limited was promoting therapeutic products in a manner alleged to be inconsistent with the Code. Specifically, if a dental professional purchased products they were eligible to receive a gift in the form of Apple computing products including an iWatch, iPhone, iPad or Macbook with the value of the gift rising in a manner that was commensurate with the value of the purchase. [Read More]

Determination:

The activity, the subject of the complaint, was not in breach of the Code. [Read More]

.
The ADIA-CAC Code Administration Committee is tasked with reviewing the code and reporting annually on code practices and it reviews the outcome of each complaint to determine what revisions to the Code may be required to ensure that it continues to reflect community, industry and regulatory standards and values.

Further Information —

To keep up to date with how the ADIA Code of Practice is working to stengthen the trust that exists between the dental industry, dental professionals and consumers subscribe to the Twitter feed @AusDental or follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/dental.industry. Alternatively, you can contact the Association via email at membership@adia.org.au or by telephone on 1300 943 094.


This information is available for your use under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence, with the exception of the ADIA logo, other images and where otherwise stated.

A.. A D I A . .S T R A T G E G I C . .A L L I A N C E S

a

Dental Industry News

  • New Code Protects Professional Independence

    5th Jan 18

    Ensuring that decisions taken by dental professionals on patient diagnostic and treatment options are independent of undue influence by product suppliers is what underpins the industry's new code of practice. More

  • 2018 Priorities — Members making a difference

    1st Jan 18

    More market data, activities to drive sales, industry training and cutting red-tape are the projects that will be delivered in 2018, outcomes all made possible thanks to an engaged membership. More

  • Website Overview