Lilly: Cialis samples posted after rep dated request forms (AUTH/1926/12/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1926/12/06
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Eli Lilly and Company Limited
Product	Cialis (tadalafil)
Issue	Samples received by post via an agency; disputed request/signatures; rep dated request forms
Complaint received	6 December 2006
Case completed	14 February 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	Clause 17.3
No breach clauses considered	Clauses 2, 9.1, 15.2, 17.10
Sanction	Undertaking received
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A general practitioner complained that samples of Cialis (tadalafil) were sent to him by post from an agency.
The GP said he had not requested the samples; correspondence suggested the agency said it had signed sample requests for three doctors, but the GP contended the signatures were not those of the doctors.
A Lilly representative had left sample request forms at the practice and later collected them from reception.
When collecting the forms, the representative completed address details and dated the forms himself, and confirmed with the receptionist which form related to which doctor.
Lilly said it and the agency believed the requests were valid and responded in good faith; Lilly asked the practice to investigate the signatures.

⚖️

⌄

Breach: Clause 17.3 (sample request forms must be signed and dated by the applicant; here they were undated when received and dated by the representative).
No breach: Clause 17.10 (unsolicited medicines by post) — the Panel considered that, from Lilly’s perspective, the samples had been requested and Lilly responded in good faith.
No breach: Clauses 9.1 and 15.2 — despite concerns about overall arrangements, the Panel did not consider rulings warranted.
No breach: Clause 2 — circumstances did not warrant the particular censure reserved for Clause 2.
No appeal.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access