Anonymous Employee v Merck Serono (AUTH/2315/4/10): Target contact rates – no breach

📅 2010 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

CaseAUTH/2315/4/10 (also referenced in report as AUTH/2315/5/10)
PartiesAnonymous Employee v Merck Serono
IssueAlleged target contact rates set verbally that would force Code breaches
Applicable Code year2008
Complaint received07 May 2010
Case completed01 June 2010
AppealNo appeal
Clauses considered15.4 and 15.9
DecisionNo breach of Clauses 15.4 and 15.9
Key evidence referencedCompany documents showing objectives largely sales-based; CRM data estimating average annual call rate 2.4 (range 0.8–4.5), ~30% service calls; system then could not distinguish calls from contacts

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • An anonymous, uncontactable key account manager alleged their manager set verbal “contact rate” targets that could only be met by breaching the ABPI Code.
  • The complainant said performance would be measured against this verbally communicated target, which was not written down.
  • The PMCPA asked Merck Serono to respond in relation to Clauses 15.4 and 15.9 (Applicable Code year: 2008).
  • Merck Serono provided field force minimum standards and campaign/action plan materials, stating objectives were largely sales targets rather than call-rate targets.
  • Merck Serono provided CRM data indicating an estimated average annual call rate per key account manager (excluding service calls) of 2.4, with a variation of 0.8 to 4.5; it estimated ~30% of recorded calls were service calls and noted it could not yet distinguish “calls” from “contacts” in its system (but this would change shortly).
  • The Panel noted one team member’s estimated annual call rate was 4.5 and reminded the company it must ensure each individual complies with the Code, not just the team overall.
⚖️

Outcome

  • No breach of the Code was ruled.
  • No breach of Clauses 15.4 and 15.9 was ruled.
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training