Pulling no punches: High Court orders ISPs to block websites selling fake GLP-1 jabs

In what is understood to be the first website blocking injunction aimed at the sale of counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicines, the High Court has ordered major UK internet service providers (“ISPs”) to block access to four websites selling fake versions of Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide products, including Ozempic and Wegovy. 

The decision in Novo Nordisk A/S & Anor v British Telecommunications & Ors [2026] EWHC 1094 (Ch) is significant because it extends the well-established website blocking regime, previously used mainly to tackle copyright piracy and counterfeit luxury goods, into the field of public health, with potentially far-reaching implications for pharmaceutical companies and medicines regulators alike.

Background

Novo Nordisk manufactures semaglutide-based medicines marketed under the brands Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus, which are used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity. The global market for GLP-1 products hit US$79bn in 2025, making these medicines a lucrative target for counterfeiters. The evidence before the court showed that four target websites (Viogen Pharma, Pharma-Labs, Leo Labs and The Steroid Supplier) (together the “Target Websites”) were selling counterfeit and unlicensed versions of Novo Nordisk’s products to UK consumers. These ranged from outright counterfeits bearing Novo Nordisk branding, to unlicensed third-party versions of semaglutide, to products containing entirely different substances such as insulin. Many of the Target Websites’ activities were deemed to be criminal offences under the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”).

The court heard evidence of serious public health risks. Falsified products had been found to contain impurities, and data from the US linked over 300 serious health incidents, 100 hospitalisations, and 10 deaths to fake semaglutide products. UK media had reported on seizures of fake pens found to contain substances including rat poison, cement, mercury, and arsenic. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) had itself tried and failed to have the websites taken down, and ultimately asked Novo Nordisk for help in blocking access to them.

Issues before the court

The application raised two issues of particular interest which Mr Justice Mellor identified for argument at the hearing:

• The basis upon which Novo Nordisk has the right to enforce a breach of the Regulations or secure an injunction to prevent repeated offences under the Regulations.
• The nature of the right(s) which an applicant for a website blocking order must be able to assert.

Of the submissions put forward by Novo Nordisk’s counsel, Mr Justice Mellor’s judgment focused on two aspects:

• Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant a website blocking injunction based on criminal offences under the Regulations, given that previous blocking orders had been grounded in intellectual property (“IP”) infringement.
• Whether Novo Nordisk had standing to enforce breaches of the Regulations or to secure an injunction to prevent repeated offences under them.

The court’s reasoning

Criminal wrongdoing is sufficient

On the first aspect, Mr Justice Mellor held that the court's jurisdiction to grant website blocking injunctions is not limited to IP infringement. Drawing on the Supreme Court's analysis in Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2018] UKSC 28 and other relevant authorities, Mr Justice Mellor confirmed that the jurisdiction derives from ordinary principles of equity, under which the court may order a party that is innocently mixed up in wrongdoing, such as an ISP, to take steps to prevent it. There is no distinction in principle between civil and criminal wrongs for this purpose, and any form of wrongdoing can suffice.

Mr Justice Mellor found that the target websites were committing multiple criminal offences under the Regulations, including selling unauthorised medicinal products, supplying prescription-only medicines without valid prescriptions, and advertising medicines for which no marketing authorisation was in force.

Standing

On the second aspect, Mr Justice Mellor concluded that Novo Nordisk had the necessary standing to bring the application, noting in particular the support and encouragement of the MHRA, which had itself been unable to take effective enforcement action against the websites. Mr Justice Mellor declined to lay down any fixed criteria for standing in cases of this kind, but was clearly satisfied on the facts.

Proportionality

Mr Justice Mellor was also satisfied that the order was proportionate, and this for many reasons, including:

• Previous cases had shown that website blocking can reduce UK visitor access by an average of 98%.
• There was negligible risk of blocking legitimate content, since an extensive review had found no lawful products on any of the target websites.
• The order included standard safeguards such as a two-year sunset clause and notification provisions.
• The ISPs did not oppose the application.

In satisfying himself of the order’s proportionality, Mr Justice Mellor placed particular importance on the fact that the UK public health benefit and the protection of Novo Nordisk’s IP rights clearly outweighed any conceivable interest of the Target Website operators. That Mr Justice Mellor considered that Novo Nordisk’s primary reason in making the application was to prevent the UK public from being exposed to fake and dangerous medicines may have assisted his assessment on proportionality.

Comment

This decision is an important development for the pharmaceutical industry and for the broader fight against online sales of counterfeit and unlicensed medicines. By confirming that website blocking injunctions can be obtained on the basis of criminal wrongdoing under medicines regulations, and not only IP infringement, the judgment opens up a powerful enforcement tool that could be deployed against a much wider range of illegal online activity. It may also encourage other pharmaceutical companies facing similar problems to consider applications of this kind, particularly where regulators lack the resources or enforcement powers to act effectively on their own.

From a practical perspective, businesses and rights holders should consider the following steps:

• Monitor online threats: Companies whose products are at risk of counterfeiting should invest in systematic online monitoring to identify websites selling fake or unlicensed versions of their products. Such monitoring is also an effective tool in gathering evidence against would-be wrongdoers.
• Build a comprehensive evidence base: The court placed considerable weight on the detailed evidence of wrongdoing, public health harm, and failed enforcement attempts. A thorough evidential record will be essential for any future applicant.
• Engage with regulators early: The MHRA’s active support was clearly influential in this case, both in demonstrating the seriousness of the problem and in bolstering Novo Nordisk's standing. Companies should engage with the MHRA or other relevant regulators at an early stage and document their attempts to have infringing websites removed.
• Consider the full range of wrongdoing: Applicants need not rely solely on trade mark infringement, passing off, or other IP-related ground. Where target websites are committing regulatory offences, these should be pleaded as additional grounds for relief. As this case proves, they may well be sufficient on their own to obtain a website blocking injunction.

For further information please contact the authors or your usual CMS contact. CMS has obtained a number of blocking orders for clients to help tackle anti-piracy related matters.

Co-authored by Daniel Boden, Trainee Solicitor.