Anonymous v Bayer: BJMA ‘Annual Scientific Meeting’ sponsorship ruled mainly social, not primarily educational (AUTH/2631/8/13)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2631/8/13
Parties	Anonymous v Bayer
Issue	Sponsorship of a meeting (BJMA UK annual meeting, Bolton, July 2013)
Applicable Code year	2012
Complaint received	7 August 2013
Case completed	25 October 2013
Appeal	No appeal
Bayer involvement	£1,000 exhibition stand; sponsored a speaker; briefed speaker; provided approved slide set
Panel view of meeting	Mainly social/cultural; maximum scientific content just over three hours across two days
Breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 9.1; Clause 19.1
No breach clauses	Clause 22.1; Clause 22.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous complainant alleged the BJMA UK annual meeting (Bolton, July 2013) was more of a weekend family/social gathering than a fully educational meeting, with children’s activities and entertainment (eg children’s football, “BJMA’s Got Talent”).
The complainant also alleged companies should not have sponsored the event or had promotional stands in front of the public.
Bayer sponsored what it believed was an independent third-party scientific meeting, paying £1,000 for an exhibition stand and providing a speaker on “The changing face of Anticoagulation in Primary Care: new solutions to old problems”.
Bayer briefed the speaker and provided an approved slide set for use on the day.
The Panel reviewed agendas and supporting documents and concluded the meeting’s main purpose appeared social/cultural, with a maximum scientific content of just over three hours across two days.
The Panel considered company involvement (sponsoring speakers and paying for exhibition space) created an unacceptable impression, especially given meeting documentation highlighting social/entertainment elements.
On the allegation of promotion to the public, the Panel noted submissions that only registered delegates accessed the exhibition area; the complainant provided no supporting detail and did not discharge the burden of proof.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 19.1 (meeting not primarily educational / did not meet Code requirements for meetings).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
Breach of Clause 2 (conduct brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the industry; used as a sign of particular censure).
No breach of Clause 22.1 and Clause 22.2 (alleged promotion to the public not proven on the balance of probabilities).
No appeal (for Bayer’s case).

🔒

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