drug policy

Fake GLP-1 jabs: no more advertising on the internet

25 June 2026 by Rosalind English

Novo Nordisk and others v BT and others [2026] EWHC 1553 (CH)

This short judgement follows an application for a website blocking order, or more accurately, an application to vary and extend an existing order made by Mellor J dated 2 October 2025. For the sake of clarity I will first summarise the earlier ruling made by Mellor J ([2026] EWHC 1094 (Ch)). The key takeaway from these two judgments is that this is the first time that the courts have used the website blocking system, which used to be aimed exclusively at copyright piracy, in the field of public health.

Here the judge upheld Novo Nordisk’s application for a website-blocking order against six major UK ISPs (BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk, Virgin Media), directed at four target websites — Viogen Pharma, Pharma-Labs, Leo Labs and The Steroid Supplier — which were advertising, offering and selling counterfeit and unlicensed semaglutide to UK consumers, branded as or referencing Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Victoza and Saxenda. The evidence established a proliferation of “falsified” products in three forms: outright counterfeits bearing NN branding, unlicensed third-party versions marketed under the INN, and products substituting an entirely different substance such as insulin. Sample purchases all showed impurities, and NN adduced FDA and WHO data linking falsified semaglutide to hundreds of hospitalisations and deaths globally. The MHRA had separately tried and failed to have the sites taken down and supported the application.

Mellor J observed that this was the first such application concerning counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicines. Advertising or offering unlicensed prescription-only medicines is itself a criminal offence under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. The question was whether NN had standing to enforce breaches of the Regulations or restrain repeated offences under them.

Jurisdictional basis

The judge applied the established Cartier framework (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court), holding that the four threshold requirements were satisfied: the ISPs were “intermediaries”; the website operators were infringing NN’s rights; UK consumers used the ISPs’ services to reach the sites and conclude purchases; and the ISPs had actual knowledge via service of the evidence. Importantly, he confirmed that the Cartier jurisdiction is not confined to IP infringement but rests on the court’s equitable protective jurisdiction over facilitators “unwittingly mixed up” in a legal wrong — civil or criminal, per Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd. Any form of civil or criminal wrongdoing would suffice, because the jurisdiction derives from ordinary principles of equity, which draws no relevant distinction between civil and criminal wrongdoing. 

Mellor J was satisfied NN had standing here — significantly influenced by the MHRA’s active support for the application.He grounded this within the wider modern law of injunctions, drawing on his own earlier review in COPA v Wright [2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch) and the Supreme Court’s Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45 and the Privy Council’s Convoy Collateral v Broad Idea International [2023] AC 389: the equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions is broad, unconfined by rigid categorisation, and can evolve to meet new circumstances provided the exercise remains principled.

Legal Aid Agency compelled to reconsider application by anorexia patient for legal aid for psilocybin treatment

28 February 2026 by Jasper Gold

How should the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) respond when a person with anorexia, which has had a “severe and debilitating impact on her physical and mental health” for a long time, applies for legal aid to assist her with making an application to the Home Office for permission for her medical team to treat her with psilocybin (the main psychoactive component in various mushrooms commonly referred to as magic mushrooms)?

In R (EB) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2026] EWHC 402, the High Court considered a challenge to the LAA’s refusal of legal aid for exactly that purpose. The Claimant had been a participant in a clinical trial at Imperial College London (a global leader in psychedelic research, and had found the treatment highly effective with no side effects ([4]). Psilocybin, though, is a controlled drug, and cannot be used even medically without authorisation from the Home Secretary under Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (the Regulations), which is far from straightforward.