The relationship between freedom of artistic expression and the restrictive provisions of pharmaceutical law has become the subject of an unprecedented ruling by supervisory authorities. In a decision dated April 2, 2026 (reference number: POWII.600.8.2026.JD.6), the Chief Pharmaceutical Inspector (GIF) assessed the work of one of the most popular Polish musical artists, concluding that the content contained therein goes beyond the framework of artistic expression and constitutes prohibited advertising of medicinal products.
This analysis aims to examine the legal motives behind the aforementioned decision and to evaluate its implications for the pharmaceutical market and marketing. In this context, the key issue remains determining the boundaries of a public administration body’s competence to interpret a literary text and infringe upon artistic freedom.
A few caveats at the outset
The subject of the controversy, which is the focus here, became a track widely available on streaming services, in which GIF officials found indications of promoting a medicinal product containing codeine. From a legal perspective, this situation touches upon a fundamental dilemma: where is the line between creative freedom and the strict regime of pharmaceutical law?
Beyond the question of artistic freedom, from the standpoint of entrepreneurs in the pharmaceutical market, this analysis prompts important questions about the future of modern communication:
- What impact does this ruling have on contemporary marketing and educational campaigns?
- How to design online communication when forms of expression increasingly evade accepted standards and statutory definitions?
- Is the state apparatus prepared to interpret a message that, instead of a commercial offer, represents an emotional description of reality?
I invite you to read this case study, in which the law attempts to review rap, and the outcome of this clash marks new, unsettling boundaries for creators and the pharmaceutical industry.
Disclaimer: The cited interpretation is a critical gloss on this very decision of the GIF. The issued decision is non-final and not legally binding – therefore, anything can still happen, and the song’s publisher has announced further legal measures and posted a statement on their profile (https://www.instagram.com/p/DXOrz12iD6h/?utm_source=ig_embed&img_index=2).
What exactly is written in the GIF decision of April 2, 2026, case ref. POWII.600.8.2026.JD.6?
The Chief Pharmaceutical Inspector initiated ex officio proceedings against the artist in connection with a violation of the regulations concerning the advertising of medicinal products. The subject of the controversy was a song widely available on streaming services (YouTube, Spotify) and song lyric portals, titled „Zakochałem się pod apteką” [I fell in love outside the pharmacy].
According to what we read in the decision – a few of the most important pieces of information.
Characteristics of the medicinal product referenced in the track:
- Active substance – codeine (classified as a narcotic substance from groups II‑N and III‑N).
- Form – effervescent (“soluble”) tablets.
- Legal status – a drug subject to special restrictions regarding promotion and advertising.
The authority analyzed the text and the narrative setting of the track, pointing to the following elements:
- Setting – the action is set „outside the pharmacy”.
- Course of events – a description of an attempt to purchase the medicine, the refusal of the pharmacist (citing rules/regulations), and the ultimate acquisition of the preparation through non-pharmacy channels.
- Context – strong emotional and relational coloring, combined with references to alcohol consumption and other behaviors of a non-medical nature.
In the course of the proceedings, the GIF verified the business relationship between the artist and the drug manufacturer, establishing that:
- The rapper is not the marketing authorization holder for the drug and did not act on behalf of the drug manufacturer.
- The artist did not receive remuneration for product placement.
- The entity manufacturing the drug officially distanced itself from any advertising cooperation with the artist.
Despite the lack of any advertising cooperation, the GIF drew attention to the sociological phenomena triggered by the publication of the track. In the authority’s view, a purchasing inspiration occurred. A wave of content (according to the GIF) documenting drug purchases directly inspired by the song was noted on social media (TikTok, meme sites). However, the decision does not mention a specific number regarding sales growth or other data on the actual purchase of the medicinal product. The GIF pointed out that the drug began to function as a „lifestyle” element or a type of „merch” associated with the artist, completely losing its therapeutic context. In public perception, the drug ceased to be viewed as a medicinal product and became a cultural prop. It was not about saving health, but rather about possessing an attribute. The GIF seems to base this on social media posts.
Ultimately, the Chief Pharmaceutical Inspector concluded that the dissemination of the track – in the part concerning the specific medicinal product – fulfills the criteria for influencing consumer behavior.
And what was the legal classification indicated in the decision?
In its decision, the GIF found that the message contained in the song meets the statutory definition of advertising a medicinal product under Article 52(1) of the Pharmaceutical Law because it did not possess the character of neutral information, contained persuasive elements arising from the context (setting, emotional narrative, aestheticization of the product), and was perceived by the average consumer as an encouragement to take an interest in and purchase the medicine.
The authority invoked the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (cited in the decision), from which the GIF believes it follows that even a third party acting independently of the manufacturer can conduct advertising for a medicinal product; the advertising nature is determined not only by the sender’s intentions, but by the public perception and the real effect of the message. In my opinion, the Authority draws incorrect conclusions from these rulings.
In its decision, the GIF found a number of flagrant regulatory violations, pointing in particular to a breach of Article 57(1)(2) of the Pharmaceutical Law, which introduces an absolute ban on advertising products containing narcotic substances, and Article 60(1) of the Pharmaceutical Law concerning the conduct of promotional activities by an unauthorized entity. The Authority also considered that presenting a product by a publicly known figure constitutes a violation of Article 55(1)(1) of the Pharmaceutical Law, and the lack of mandatory data and risk warnings violates the requirements specified in § 6 and § 7 of the Regulation on the Advertising of Medicinal Products. In the ethical and social dimension, the GIF emphasized the violation of the principles of rational pharmacotherapy and public health protection, attaching particular weight to the harmful normalization of risky behaviors. The Authority indicated that the artist’s work led to the romanticization and aestheticization of the recreational use of the drug, which in effect weakened the pharmacist’s authority and the importance of safety rules, moving a potent medical preparation from a therapeutic context into a purely cultural-entertainment sphere.
The GIF conducted a test to determine on what grounds the protection of public health outweighed artistic freedom.
„The decisive factor necessitating the restriction of the Party’s artistic freedom through the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Law regarding the advertising of a medicinal product is, in the case under consideration, the reference in the song’s lyrics to a specific medicinal product (containing a narcotic substance in its composition), the improper use or abuse of which may pose a threat to public health. It should be noted that medicinal products, due to their properties and use, are classified as products subject to detailed regulations, including in the area of trade and advertising. The song lyrics contain information regarding the properties of the medicinal product: referring to its pharmaceutical form — an effervescent tablet, specified by the Party as a „soluble tablet,” and its action, as the pharmacist says: „this is a strong powder, so I cannot give it, there are rules.” The „rules” cited by the pharmacist are the provisions of the Regulation of the Minister of Health of 16 December 2016 on the list of substances with psychoactive effects and the maximum level of their content in a medicinal product within a single sale (Journal of Laws item 2189), specifying the upper limits of content for the following psychoactive substances in medicines with an OTC (over-the-counter) availability category:
- • pseudoephedrine (maximum content: 720 mg/package);
- codeine (maximum content: 150 mg/package);
- dextromethorphan (maximum content: 360 mg/package),
The GIF found that although the freedom of artistic creation (Article 73 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland) is subject to special protection:
- it may be restricted on the basis of Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland,
- in this case, the restriction is justified by the protection of public health,
- the decisive factor is that it concerns a medicinal product containing a narcotic substance.
The GIF ordered the cessation of the dissemination of the song in the part containing references to the medicinal product, made the decision immediately enforceable, and instructed on the possibility of filing a motion for reconsideration of the case or an appeal to the Voivodship Administrative Court (WSA).
So what is this case really about? Critical analysis of the GIF’s proceedings
The essence of the matter comes down to a fundamental question: czy możliwe jest zakwalifikowanie utworu artystycznego, który nie ma na celu komercyjnego odnoszącego się do leku, jako reklamy produktu leczniczego wyłącznie na podstawie odbioru i kontekstu? [is it possible to classify an artistic work that does not have a commercial purpose relating to a drug as an advertisement for a medicinal product solely on the basis of reception and context?]
The GIF answers: yes.
Administrative law – and especially the standards of judicial review – compel the answer: as a general rule, no.
Analysis of the interpretation of Article 52(1) of the Pharmaceutical Law – the significance of purpose in the definition of advertising
The key point of contention in the case at hand is the Authority’s interpretation of Article 52(1) of the Pharmaceutical Law act. The GIF took the position that for the advertising of a medicinal product to occur, its objective reception and the resulting social effect are decisive, rather than the intention of the author of the message. In the Authority’s view, the increased interest in a given preparation among the recipients of the track is a sufficient prerequisite to consider the artistic activity as prohibited promotion.
The statutory definition of advertising (Article 52(1) of the Pharmaceutical Law) requires demonstrating a targeted action, i.e., a specific intent to increase sales. In the absence of cooperation with the manufacturer and the lack of remuneration, attributing a commercial purpose to the artist is groundless and constitutes a logical error consisting in equating an unintended sociological effect with legal intent. Such an expansive interpretation of sanctioned norms, i.e., a prohibition, violates the principles of a state governed by the rule of law and ignores the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA), according to which using a product name as an artistic prop – without a proven promotional intent – does not constitute advertising.
The GIF did work in another area, because in its decision it writes about how popular a rapper and artist Taco Hemingway is. It provides detailed data on where the track is published, and on which websites the full lyrics can be found (which, by the way, are still available). It apparently aims to suggest that the more popular a known person is, the greater their influence on society. However, all these attempts to demonstrate how popular the song is still failed to answer one question – about the purpose. The evidence cited in the decision does not show that the artist intended to make Polish society take this specific drug.
Allegation of defective application of the „recipient” criterion and the impermissible equation of social effect with advertising purpose
The main error of the Authority is the uncritical transfer of assessment standards proper to commercial communication onto the ground of artistic expression. By adopting the primacy of the „average consumer” perspective, the GIF ignored the fact that in a work of culture, a medicinal product serves as a prop or an element of the represented world, rather than the subject of a commercial offer.
Three errors occurred in the decision:
- A. Defective assessment methodology – case law allowing the study of recipient perception developed against the background of economic disputes. Applying it to an artist who does not create a persuasive message, but an artistic vision, is erroneous;
- B. The risk of „ex post advertising”;
- C. Confusing inspiration with promotion.
Another key allegation against the GIF decision is basing the ruling on anecdotal evidence. The Authority, analyzing content from TikTok and internet memes, made a flawed assumption, in my view, that the temporary occurrence of a purchasing trend after the track’s premiere is identical to the existence of a causal link. It does not cite sales evidence in the decision.
The GIF wrongly assumed that the artist’s recognizability pushes his work into the requirements of strict advertising bans. This provision is meant to prevent the exploitation of authority in commercial communications, not to restrict the expression of creators acting in their own name. The Authority’s interpretation leads to the dangerous conclusion that public figures possess a narrower scope of freedom of speech than unknown individuals.
According to the GIF, users’ recordings documenting purchases of the drug constitute proof of a cultural phenomenon, rather than a deliberate marketing activity by the artist. Holding that a creator is responsible for how independent users interpret and utilize their work goes beyond the boundaries of legal liability. The Authority ignored the complexity of internet mechanisms, such as irony, meme trends, or viral effects, which could have been the actual driver of consumer behavior, regardless of the creator’s intentions. In matters of a punitive nature, it is the authority that must prove the violation, rather than the party proving its absence. Basing the decision on selective screenshots that fit a pre-established thesis represents a dangerous presumption of liability, even though, of course, the authority invokes public health issues.
The main allegation of the artist’s legal counsel against the GIF decision was the violation of Article 73 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which guarantees the freedom of artistic creation. By imposing the harshest possible sanctions, the Authority rendered this freedom illusory, while failing to demonstrate that such a drastic interference was necessary. The GIF decision violates the ultima ratio principle because the authority did not show that a total ban on the dissemination of the track was the only way to protect public health, completely omitting milder measures, such as medical warnings. Consequently, the authority groundlessly granted primacy to the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Law over artistic freedom, ignoring the fact that in a state governed by the rule of law, health protection cannot automatically „extinguish” creative freedom, especially when the author acts without a commercial purpose and an agreement with the manufacturer.
One might venture to say that health protection cannot constitute a „blank check” for arbitrary censorship of cultural content. Recognizing a ban on dissemination as the sole method of protection against „song inspiration” is an expression of the state’s potential helplessness in the field of health education, carried out at the expense of fundamental civil liberties.
Summary
The case concerns a pioneering dispute over the boundaries of artistic freedom in conflict with the rigors of the Pharmaceutical Law. The Chief Pharmaceutical Inspector deemed a musical track to be an illegal advertisement for a codeine drug, despite the lack of cooperation between the artist and the manufacturer or any financial benefits. According to the Authority, presenting the drug in a lifestyle context (the so-called „romanticizing” of a narcotic substance) and the resulting purchasing trend on social media seal the violation of bans concerning the advertising of controlled substances and the participation of known figures in drug promotion.
Examples such as Billie Eilish’s song Xanny or the ubiquity of cigarettes in the TV series Mad Men prove that the names of medicinal products and stimulants function in culture as artistic props, rather than promotional messages, which constitutes a fundamental argument against automatically equating creative expression with advertising activity.
The GIF decision creates a dangerous precedent of „advertising through effect,” wherein the legality of an artistic work is determined not by the creator’s intention, but by the unpredictable reaction of recipients and trends on social media. Such an approach introduces a „chilling effect,” forcing authors into self-censorship and striking at the principle of legal certainty, as liability is detached from a real commercial purpose in favor of external consumer behavior. For entrepreneurs and the creative sector, this means a drastic increase in regulatory risk: any mention of a drug, even without advertising intent or remuneration, can be deemed prohibited promotion if it realistically increases interest in the product in a non-medical context. In practice, this means that the Authority grants itself the role of a censor of cultural content, deeming that the protection of health safety allows for the sanctioning of lifestyle messages that shape purchasing attitudes, regardless of the lack of business ties with the manufacturer.
And what does this entire case mean for entrepreneurs?
The unprecedented GIF decision carries significant risks for entrepreneurs as well, extending far beyond the music industry. It means that the boundary of liability for online messaging is undergoing a drastic blurring – essentially in the direction of absolute bans. Entrepreneurs must expect that the supervisory authority may consider them „advertisers” even in situations where they exercise no real control over the final message or the response of the recipients.
For business, this case marks a new dimension of regulatory risk. It suggests that a brand can be linked to a violation of law not through its own marketing activities, but through the way its product functions in pop culture. If the „recipients’ reaction” begins to define the concept of advertising, entrepreneurs will lose control over the legal safety of their brands, becoming hostages to viral trends over which they have no influence.
If assigning liability based on social media trends becomes the standard, every educational campaign, influencer collaboration, and even accidental sharing of content by users (so-called user-generated content) could be classified as prohibited ex post advertising. For business, this is a signal to exercise extreme caution: in a world where TikTok’s reaction „creates” advertising in the eyes of an official, precise clauses in cooperation agreements and close monitoring of communication become not so much a choice, but a necessity for survival in an unpredictable regulatory environment.
For the business world, and particularly for marketing and creative departments, this ruling represents a dangerous signal about the expansion of the boundaries of administrative power. If the GIF’s interpretation holds in legal circulation, entrepreneurs must expect the following consequences:
- What about unconventional forms of communication (e.g., ambient marketing or storytelling), when any artistic element is deemed „illegal advertising” due to its reach rather than its content?
- Entrepreneurs may be held liable or joined to the case because of how their product appears in popular culture, even if they had no influence over it. This decision suggests that a product’s popularity (even unintended) can become the basis for an agency intervention.
- The lack of clear boundaries between „inspiration” and „promotion” means that any educational or social campaign that references medicinal products becomes fraught with high legal risk.
This precedent sheds light on the systemic risk for entities operating in the digital ecosystem:
- Entrepreneurs must anticipate that the supervisory authority may block their campaign or product immediately, based on a subjective assessment of harmfulness, without having to wait for a court ruling.
- Businesses should prepare alternative versions of communication in advance (e.g., with ready-made warning panels) so that, in the event of a dispute, they can propose a milder measure to the authority than total withdrawal of materials.
- If „public interest” becomes a tool for moral censorship, any brand building its image on controversy or authenticity must factor into its budget the risk of total and sudden suspension of content distribution.
For professionals, this is a lesson that in a dispute with the administration, substantive arguments can lose out to the „automatism of sanctions.” This forces legal and marketing departments to cooperate closely at the conceptual stage to avoid a scenario where the only dialogue with the office is an order to remove the work.
If you have questions about the advertising of medicinal products or other sensitive substances – feel free to contact me – juchanska@ajlawpl, 506 144 611 AJ LAW Uchańska Diskau Kancelaria radczyń prawnych sp.p.