A pharmacy counter screen is a communication medium aimed at the general public, and that defines everything. Prescription-only medicine cannot be advertised there — and that ban sits in statute (Law 9,294/1996, article 7; Decree 2,018/1996, article 11), detailed by RDC 96/2008, article 27. Over-the-counter medicine can, provided the piece carries the brand name, the active substance at no less than 50% of the size of the brand name, the Anvisa registration number with nine digits, the indications, the print date of the piece and the warning "IF SYMPTOMS PERSIST, CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR". Generics have their own permission for the dispensing premises (Law 9,294, article 7, paragraph 4), with an indication of the reference medicine. And advertising a discount on medicine on the screen obliges the store to keep, visible to the public, the list of advertised medicines with the reduced price (article 11, paragraph 5). Perfumery, hygiene, dermocosmetics, supplements and the pharmacy's own services fall outside all of this.
A note on method. Every provision cited here was read in the official source, not in a search summary: RDC no. 96/2008 in the consolidated version published by Anvisa (with the amendments of Resolutions RDC 23/2009 and RDC 60/2009 and the cross-references to Normative Instruction no. 5/2009), plus Law no. 9,294/1996 and Decree no. 2,018/1996 on the Brazilian government's official portal. This is an informative article: it is not legal or regulatory advice. A concrete piece and a concrete case go to your local health authority and to your regional pharmacy council before going on air.
No format sits outside the rule
The first instinct of whoever builds the playlist is to assume a screen inside the store is an internal environment, and that an internal environment is not an advertisement. Article 1 of the regulation annexed to RDC 96/2008 closes that door in its first line: it applies to advertising, publicity, information and other practices whose purpose is the disclosure or commercial promotion of medicines, "whatever the forms and means of their broadcast, including those transmitted during the normal programming of radio and television stations".
In other words: no medium is out of reach. Being inside the pharmacy does not create a special zone, and the fact that the screen is yours rather than a broadcaster's changes nothing. What changes the regime is who sees the piece — and at the counter the answer is always the same.
The question that settles it: who sees this screen?
The whole body of medicine advertising rules is organised around two worlds. On one side, media aimed exclusively at professionals qualified to prescribe or dispense, where almost everything fits, with the technical information of article 27. On the other, media aimed at the general public, where only what the statute released to lay audiences may appear.
The screen at the counter, in the queue, by the shelf and at the entrance is in the second world, with no possible argument: it is seen by anyone who walks into the store. Before any format detail, this is the question that resolves 90% of playlist doubts — which is why it comes first here.
One detail that changes the answer. There is a pharmacy screen that is not aimed at the general public: the one in the staff-only area behind the counter, facing whoever dispenses. That one is internal communication for dispensers, and the regime is different. If you have both, they cannot share the same playlist — it is the first separation to make in the panel.
Prescription drugs at the counter: no — and that is statute
Article 27 of RDC 96 is direct: advertising of prescription-only medicine "is restricted to communication media aimed exclusively at health professionals qualified to prescribe or dispense such products". In Brazil these are the products with a red or black stripe on the box, and they are out of any screen the customer sees.
It is worth recording why this is firmer than the rest of the article: the ban does not originate in the health agency's resolution. It is in Law 9,294/1996, article 7, main clause, under which medicine and therapy advertising of any kind "may be done in specialised publications aimed directly and specifically at health professionals and institutions". And it is in Decree 2,018/1996, article 11, spelled out: advertising of medicine whose sale depends on a prescription by a physician or a dentist "may only be done to those professionals, through specific publications".
Hold on to that distinction: it returns in the next section, and it is what separates what you can state with confidence from what is under judicial review.
Who rules here: statute, resolution and the Superior Court
One paragraph of context, because it changes how things are stated — not the practical conclusion. In August 2024, the First Panel of Brazil's Superior Court of Justice, in REsp 2,035,645, reported by Justice Regina Helena Costa, held that Anvisa exceeded its competence by creating, through a sub-statutory act, medicine advertising obligations not provided for in Law 9,294/1996. The news release published by the court itself on August 26, 2024 names, among the examples, the ban on indirect advertising in the scenic context of shows and films, the ban on publicity showing people using medicines, the sedation warning requirement and restrictions on certain expressions in OTC publicity. The court decided to notify the Ministry of Health and the National Congress.
It is a panel ruling in a specific case, not a binding precedent and without general effect. Which is exactly why this article's recommendation does not change:
- The ban on advertising prescription medicine to the public is statutory and survives the ruling intact — it can be stated without caveat.
- The "if symptoms persist" warning is also statutory: it sits in Law 9,294, article 7, paragraph 5, which says all medicine advertising shall mandatorily contain it. It survives just the same.
- The format requirements created by RDC 96 — article 22, article 6, article 24, article 11, paragraph 5 — are the kind the ruling questions. About those, this article writes "the health agency's rule requires", never "the law obliges".
- RDC 96 is listed as in force on Anvisa's official advertising legislation page, and it is what health inspectors apply at the counter. Arguing about the agency's competence is a matter for lawyers in litigation; whoever builds the screen grid follows the rule in force.
OTC can: article 22 as a vertical-video checklist
Over-the-counter medicine may be advertised to the general public. Article 22 lists what must appear — and since nearly all published content treats this as legalese, it is worth translating into what matters to whoever produces the 15-second piece in 9:16:
| Mandatory item (article 22) | What it means in a vertical layout |
|---|---|
| I — brand name of the medicine, where there is one | It is the main graphic element; everything else is sized from it. |
| II — name of the active substance (Brazilian or international nomenclature) at no less than 50% of the size of the brand name | The hardest layout constraint in the piece. If the brand name fills the screen at 120 pt, the active substance cannot drop below 60 pt. For medicines with more than two and up to four active substances the rule allows 30%; above four, there is the "+ ASSOCIAÇÃO" rule at 50%. |
| III — Anvisa registration number, with at least nine digits | A fixed footer line. Only radio pieces are exempt — video is not. |
| IV — for simplified-notification medicines, the resolution phrase and the AFE number | An extra text block; if the piece covers those products, the template must reserve the space. |
| V — the indications | In language a lay audience understands: item "c" of the same article requires technical terms to be written so as to ease public comprehension. |
| VI — print date of the advertising piece | The item nobody remembers. On a screen piece it is the file generation date — and it forces you to version the piece: republishing next month is a different piece, with a different date. |
| VII — the warning "IF SYMPTOMS PERSIST, CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR", observing article 6 | Contrast, layout in the predominant reading direction, and enough time to read. See the two sections that follow. |
Add article 23: an OTC piece must also carry the warning related to the medicine's active substance, per the table in annex III of the resolution itself. Where the substance (or combination) is not in the table, the standard phrase applies: "(brand name of the medicine or, for generics, the active substance) IS A MEDICINE. ITS USE MAY CARRY RISKS. CONSULT A DOCTOR AND A PHARMACIST. READ THE PACKAGE INSERT". And article 17: if the medicine causes sedation or drowsiness per its Anvisa-registered insert, the "do not drive or operate machinery" warning applies instead of the article 23 one.
A space calculation, before approving the template. Brand name + active substance at 50% + a nine-digit registration number + indications in lay language + a date + two lines of warnings. On a 1080×1920 vertical screen that easily takes up a third of the piece. Whoever designs the art needs to know that up front, not afterwards — it is the difference between a template that lasts the year and rework on every piece.
The muted-screen catch: article 24
This is the section that justifies the article, and the point no "TV for pharmacies" content covers. Article 24 is not about what the warning says, but about how it is delivered — and it has a rule specific to television:
"The warning referred to in article 23 must be contextualised in the advertising piece, such that it is spoken by the main character when broadcast on television (…). II - If the television advertising does not feature a main character, the warnings must observe the following requirements: a) after the end of the advertising message, the warning shall be displayed on a single card, with a blue background, in white letters, in a way that allows perfect legibility and visibility, remaining motionless on screen; b) the voice-over must be distinct, measured, paused and perfectly audible."
Read item "b" again. The rule requires audible voice-over — in both scenarios, with or without a main character. And the counter screen, in practically every pharmacy, is muted: nobody wants sound competing with service at the queue.
There is a real tension here, and it is fair to state it: article 6, sole paragraph allows written information that is not voiced to be shown on television "for enough time to read". One reading is that this paragraph settles the no-audio screen case. The opposite reading is that article 24 is specific to the article 23 warning and, being specific, prevails. We found no decision or Anvisa guidance settling the point-of-sale screen case specifically — a format that did not exist as it does today when the rule was written, in 2008.
Practical, conservative recommendation. If your grid will carry OTC advertising, plan the piece with audio that is audible at the point — and that means real volume, not token sound. If your point is muted (the normal case), the safe route is not to use the screen for medicine advertising at all: use the article 18 price list, institutional content and the rest of the store's mix, which is where most of the incremental revenue sits anyway. And take the concrete piece to your local health authority before the grid debuts — a five-minute question that saves an enforcement notice.
Article 6 is the vertical-screen provision
After article 24, article 6 is the provision that most affects whoever produces the piece. Required information, when written, must appear "in colours that contrast with the background of the advertisement", must be "laid out in the predominant reading direction of the advertising piece" and must allow "its immediate visualisation, keeping the proper proportions of distance between the items, indispensable to legibility and prominence".
Three concrete consequences for vertical Indoor TV:
- A warning rotated onto the side is out. In a 9:16 piece the predominant reading direction is vertical. Rotating the warning block 90° to "use the side space" breaks article 6 literally — and it is exactly the shortcut that shows up when the art does not fit.
- Real contrast, measured on the screen, not on your monitor. Light grey on white passes in Figma and vanishes on a Smart TV three metres away. Test on the installed screen, under the store's real lighting.
- Enough time to read. That is the sole paragraph, and it turns slide duration into a regulatory requirement, not a design choice. An 8 or 10-second piece frequently cannot fit the mandatory warnings at a legible pace. If the slide has to last 20 seconds, the grid maths changes — and that is in how long should the Indoor TV loop be.
Generics have a permission written for your store
Here is the most useful finding in this article, and it comes from reading the statute directly — not a search summary. Law 9,294/1996, article 7, paragraph 4, added by Provisional Measure 2,190-34/2001, says:
"Advertising of generic medicines is permitted in advertising campaigns sponsored by the Ministry of Health and on the premises of establishments authorised to dispense them, with an indication of the reference medicine."
"Premises of an establishment authorised to dispense them" is, literally, the inside of your pharmacy. This is the only case in which Brazilian medicine advertising legislation opens a permission by place — and the place is exactly where your screen is. Two conditions travel with it:
- Indication of the reference medicine — it is in the text of the statute, and it is what most pieces forget.
- The phrase "Medicamento Genérico - Lei nº 9.787/99", required by article 16 of RDC 96 for all generic advertising.
And a prohibition that travels alongside: article 8, X forbids presenting as generic any compounded or manufactured medicine that is not a generic under Law 9,787/99. Calling a similar drug a generic on screen is an infraction, not loose wording.
Note what this permission does not do: it does not waive the format requirements of the piece, and it does not turn a striped generic into content released to the public. What it does recognise is that generics policy carries public interest — and that the counter is where it happens.
Price and discount on screen: what the screen obliges
This is the section that most surprises pharmacy owners, because the result is the opposite of what they expect. Start with article 18: medicine prices, when stated to the general public, must be shown through lists containing only the brand name, the active substance, the presentation (strength, pharmaceutical form and quantity), the Anvisa registration number, the name of the registration holder and the price. The word "only" is the point: package images, slogans, indications and promotional arguments do not belong in a price list. For OTC, the sole paragraph allows forms of communication other than lists, provided they include the other information the regulation requires.
Then article 11, the discount provision — with two traps:
| Provision | What it requires | Effect on the screen grid |
|---|---|---|
| Article 11, main clause | Price comparison aimed at consumers only between interchangeable medicines under Law 9,787/99 | A "compare: A costs X, B costs Y" piece only exists between interchangeables. Free comparison is a paragraph 1 privilege, and only for prescribers. |
| Article 11, paragraph 4 | Once a discount percentage and/or promotional price is stated, the full price charged must also be stated | Two price figures in the same piece. The single-number "flash sale" template is irregular. |
| Article 11, paragraph 5 | When advertising medicine discounts "through ads broadcast on television, radio, print, banners or any other means", the pharmacy must keep available, visible to the public, the list of advertised medicines with the reduced price under article 18 | The screen does not replace the list — it creates the obligation to have one. Advertised a discount on the counter TV? There is now a physical or digital list, visible to the customer, in the article 18 format. |
| Article 19 | Group discount phrases ("generics 30% off") may not be accompanied by other advertising arguments | The group piece is sober: the phrase and the price. No urgency soundtrack, no "hurry", no package imagery. |
There is a parallel with what the screen already obliges outside the world of medicines: when a price appears on a supermarket piece, what the customer sees on screen is an offer and it binds the store. We covered that other half in selling expiring food on the supermarket TV. In a pharmacy the two layers stack — consumer law and health regulation — and the health layer is the more detailed of the two. The consumer layer, covering what a price on the screen obliges and why it does not replace the product label, is in shelf price versus checkout price.
The article 8 list, translated into a script
Article 8 holds the list of prohibitions for medicine advertising. Translated into script and stock-image decisions:
- I — nothing that encourages or induces indiscriminate use. This is where "buy 3, pay 2" on medicine is exposed. To be precise: those words are not in the rule. What exists is the possible framing as encouragement of indiscriminate use (article 8, I) and, where points or prizes are involved, article 10. Write "may be framed as", never "the rule bans the phrase".
- II — nothing that suggests or encourages diagnosis by the general public. The quiz-format piece ("got these 3 symptoms? it could be X") is out.
- III — no images of people using the medicine. That rules out much of the standard stock library: the hand raising the pill to the mouth, the glass of water, the gesture of applying eye drops.
- IV — "new" only for two years from the start of commercialisation in Brazil.
- V — no seals or marks of government institutions, charities, medical societies, NGOs, consumer associations or quality certification seals.
- VI — nothing suggesting pleasant taste ("tasty", "delicious" or equivalents), nor imagery hinting at the medicine's flavour.
- VII — no imperatives that directly induce consumption: "have", "take", "use", "try". It is the line that appears most often in social media creative.
- IX — nothing that creates sales expectation. Normative Instruction no. 5/2009, article 2, defines this with examples: "get your stock right and don't lose sales", "the best for your profits". That prohibition targets pieces aimed at the retailer rather than the customer — but it is worth knowing, because it is the tone of much of the material the industry sends to the point of sale.
- XI — nothing suggesting that a person's health could be affected by not using the medicine.
For OTC pieces specifically, article 26 adds prohibitions that matter a lot to laboratory creative: no "scientifically proven" and equivalents (I); no suggesting the medicine is the only alternative or that healthy habits and seeing a doctor are superfluous (II); no lay celebrity claiming or suggesting they use the medicine or recommending it (III); no linking use to alcoholic or gastronomic excess (IV) or to physical, intellectual, emotional or sexual performance or beauty, unless approved by Anvisa (V); no abusive or frightening depiction of bodily changes (VI); and no messages, symbols or images aimed at children or adolescents (VII).
That item VII deserves attention in a pharmacy, because the baby-aisle screen is one of the best sellers. Nappies, wipes, bottles and baby hygiene are not medicines and fall outside the rule. A children's medicine piece does not — and in it there is no room for the cartoon character, the jingle and the appeal designed for a child.
One caveat for honesty: items III and VI of article 8 and the expression restrictions of article 26 are among the examples the Superior Court news release on REsp 2,035,645 cites as Anvisa exceeding its competence. They remain in the text in force and are still applied by inspectors; but if your piece depends on them, that is the information missing from most of what is indexed today.
Laboratory institutional content and indirect advertising
The most common sponsorship case: the laboratory does not want to advertise a product, it wants to appear. Where is the line?
Article 4 forbids misleading, abusive and/or indirect advertising. The sole paragraph details it: it is forbidden to use communication techniques that allow the image and/or mention of any active substance or medicine brand "in a manner not openly advertorial". So the line is not "institutional is allowed / not allowed". It is finer:
| Piece on the counter screen | Reading |
|---|---|
| Laboratory brand, the plant, company history, declared sponsorship, no product and no health condition mentioned | Generic institutional — not medicine advertising |
| "Educational" content about a disease that ends on the signature of the laboratory treating that disease | Risk of indirect advertising — the public links condition to portfolio without the piece declaring itself advertorial |
| Public health campaigns without a product brand (vaccination, blood pressure checks, awareness days) | Fits — and it is among the best content in the grid |
| A piece with a health professional endorsing advertised properties | Fits only with the professional's name and council registration number on the message (article 21) |
Recalling the caveat from the Superior Court section: the sole paragraph of article 4 is by name one of the provisions the ruling flagged as sub-statutory overreach. The test remains useful as production guidance — but it is not the provision on which you win an argument.
Loyalty programmes, gifts and the QR code on screen
Article 10 is specific to your business: loyalty programmes run in pharmacies and drugstores, aimed at the consumer, may not have medicines as the object of points, exchange, draws or prizes. And the sole paragraph requires all promotional material for the programme, and its terms, to state that restriction.
Applied to the screen: if your playlist has the loyalty club piece, with a QR code for sign-up, that piece is promotional material for the programme — so it must state the restriction. One line does it.
Add article 5: companies may not grant, offer, promise or distribute gifts, benefits and advantages to prescribers, dispensers, direct-to-consumer sellers or the general public. Normative Instruction no. 5/2009, article 1 carves out institutional gifts — those that do not carry medicine advertising — and technical-scientific material. In screen practice: "get a free gift when you buy medicine X" is out; "pick up your branded pill organiser" is a different conversation.
Do not screen-record the laboratory's Instagram
This article was born from an episode of our podcast in which the suggestion appears with the best of intentions: if you have no contact at the laboratory's marketing team, open their social media and record the screen — phone resolution is great, and the creative is already vertical. It is an idea that solves the wrong problem, for three reasons stacked together:
- Copyright. The creative is a third party's work. Reproducing it without a licence is unauthorised reproduction, and the piece stays on air eight hours a day, identified with your store.
- The piece arrives incomplete. Material made for the manufacturer's feed rarely carries the six article 22 items in the required form — usually missing the active substance at 50%, the registration number, the print date of the piece and the article 23 warning. Whoever broadcasts it answers for the omission.
- Provenance matters. Article 3, paragraph 1 requires advertising to come from a company in good standing before the competent health authority, and paragraph 2 requires all claims to be consistent with what is registered with Anvisa. A screen-captured piece, with no approval trail, documents none of that.
The route that works is shorter than it looks: ask the manufacturer's regulatory team — not the sales team — for the already-approved piece, in vertical format, with the print date and the warnings. A laboratory that sponsors point-of-sale screens usually has this material ready, because its internal approval is stricter than yours. And keep the usage authorisation in writing, together with the exact file version that went on air.
When sponsorship evolves into "how much do I charge to give up space on my screen", the maths and the contract are in charging Indoor TV advertisers: flat fee or percentage — with a caveat specific to this case: medicine is not an advertiser like any other, and the contract needs to say who approves each piece and who answers for its regulatory compliance.
Who is liable — and the playlist checklist
Liability follows whoever broadcasts. The piece shown in your store is your company's advertising, and article 3, paragraph 1 of RDC 96 requires it to come from a company in good standing before the competent health authority. The penalties are in Law 9,294, article 9: a warning; suspension, on the broadcasting medium, of any other advertising of the product for up to thirty days; mandatory broadcast of a correction or clarification; seizure of the product; and a fine of BRL 5,000.00 to BRL 100,000.00, applied according to the offender's economic capacity (wording of Law 10,167/2000).
A caveat this article makes on purpose: we found no provision, in the rules read here, naming the pharmacist in charge as the approver of the playlist. Having the grid pass through them before going live is good governance practice — an obvious one, since they know the portfolio and the stripe on every item. But it is not a citation of law, and this article will not invent one.
Question 1 resolves most of a pharmacy grid, because most of the mix is not medicine. None of the four replaces consulting your local health authority about a concrete piece.
| # | Check before the piece goes on air | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does the piece advertise prescription-only medicine? If so, it does not go on a screen the customer sees — only on media restricted to professionals. | Law 9,294, art. 7; Decree 2,018, art. 11; RDC 96, art. 27 |
| 2 | Being OTC, does the piece carry the six items of article 22, including the active substance at 50% and the print date? | RDC 96, art. 22 |
| 3 | Does it carry the active substance warning (annex III) or the standard phrase of the sole paragraph? | RDC 96, arts. 23 and 17 |
| 4 | Is the warning legible, contrasting and in the predominant reading direction, for long enough? If the piece is OTC and the point is muted, has the article 24 question gone to the local authority? | RDC 96, arts. 6 and 24 |
| 5 | Being a generic, does the piece name the reference medicine and carry "Medicamento Genérico - Lei nº 9.787/99"? | Law 9,294, art. 7, §4; RDC 96, art. 16 |
| 6 | Is there a price in the piece? Then: article 18 list format; full price alongside the promotional one; and the list visible to the public already exists in the store. | RDC 96, arts. 18, 11 §4 and 11 §5 |
| 7 | Is the piece clear of the article 8 prohibitions (indiscriminate use, diagnosis, people using it, "new", seals, flavour, imperatives) and, being OTC, of those in article 26 (lay celebrity, child audience)? | RDC 96, arts. 8 and 26 |
| 8 | Did the piece come from a third party? Are the usage authorisation and the manufacturer's regulatory approval documented, and is the file on air the approved version? | RDC 96, art. 3, §§1 and 2 |
| 9 | If a health professional endorses the product in the piece, are their name and council registration number shown? | RDC 96, art. 21 |
| 10 | Does the loyalty club piece state that medicine is not an object of points, exchange, draws or prizes? | RDC 96, art. 10 and sole paragraph |
| 11 | Is there a revalidation date for the grid — is it reviewed when price, portfolio, stripe or rule changes? | Good practice, derived from arts. 22, VI and 3, §2 |
Keep the completed checklist with the file of the piece. Under inspection, what protects the store is not the piece "looking correct" — it is having a documented, dated decision by whoever approved what went on air. It is also why a cloud-managed screen helps: whoever approves needs to be able to pull a piece off air alone, on the spot, without a USB stick or a technician visit — which we cover in managing Indoor TV from your phone.
What to show without entering this complexity
After so many prohibitions, the common reaction is to switch the screen off. That is the wrong call — because most of a pharmacy's incremental revenue is not medicine, and none of this applies to the rest:
- Perfumery, hygiene and dermocosmetics — the category the customer buys on impulse and nobody offers in the queue.
- Supplements, nutrition and convenience — what makes a neighbourhood pharmacy look like a small market, and is almost never displayed on purpose.
- Baby and childcare (nappies, wipes, bottles, bath) — including the packaging change notice, one of the biggest silent causes of lost sales: the customer cannot find the product that changed its label and leaves.
- Pet, if the store carries food and accessories.
- Pharmacy services authorised at your unit — blood pressure checks, injection administration, vaccines where authorised, available tests. Promote the ones your unit is authorised to provide, without listing a procedure you have not confirmed; the pharmacy services rules are a different body of regulation and are out of this article's scope.
- Public interest and health campaigns without a product brand — vaccination, prevention, awareness dates.
- Your own store's institutional content: opening hours, delivery, WhatsApp, payment methods, accepted insurance, priority queue notices.
How to split that mix by store zone — entrance, shelf, counter, checkout — is the subject of Indoor TV by store zone. The commercial logic of turning each of those pieces into average ticket is in the Indoor TV sales triggers playbook — and the division between the two articles is exactly this: there you find what works to sell, here you find what health regulation allows you to show. When the product in the piece is a medicine, the health agency sets the ruler, not the trade marketing manual.
For the other professional council that imposes a similar ruler on a service screen, see this article's twin: what you can show on a dental office waiting room TV, rule by rule of the CFO code. Together, the two are the same reasoning applied to different sectors — and the structure is the same: work out who sees the screen, find the provision, derive the consequence for the video piece.
Sizing the grid by real dwell time
An operations note, because it changes the article 6 maths. A pharmacy has the shortest dwell time in neighbourhood retail: the customer walks in decided, resolves it and leaves. In the conversation that originated this article, the operation's own estimate is 5 to 15 minutes, stretching when a prescription has to be retained or the process is more bureaucratic.
That creates a neat tension with the rule: article 6, sole paragraph, asks for enough time to read the warnings, which lengthens the slide; short dwell time asks for a short grid, so the customer sees the whole piece before being served. Both are solved with fewer medicine pieces and more pieces from the rest of the mix — which carry no warning block and can run for 8 or 10 seconds. The loop slack rule is in how long should the Indoor TV loop be, and the vertical screen without a kiosk, the format cited in the episode, in vertical Indoor TV without a kiosk.
On hardware, a correction worth repeating because it circulates wrong: the app runs on a regular Smart TV, and the compatibility we have confirmed across our articles is for 2020 models onwards — detail in Indoor TV app on any Smart TV. Avoid TVs from brands without an official Play Store: the modified app store on those sets is the most common cause of "I installed it and it vanished" — and swapping the screen later costs more than choosing right up front. Plan prices are always up to date on the plans table.
This article was born from an episode of Café & Tech — Pharmacy point of sale: how to increase profit with 100% vertical Indoor TV, with Mário Sérgio and Josimar Machado, published on December 24, 2025.
The episode covers operations: inventory management, complementary products, content sponsored by the laboratory and a grid sized by the customer's short dwell time. The regulatory side is this article's — including a correction to the passage suggesting you screen-record the laboratory's social media to play at the counter. Full episode at youtube.com/watch?v=aMCrrbmmIMI.