Grünenthal breached Clause 15.4 after sales email blurred “interactions” with call vs contact rates

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2652/11/13
ComplainantAnonymous, non-contactable employee
CompanyGrünenthal
IssueFailure to distinguish between call rates and contact rates in a sales-force email referring to “interactions” and daily activity expectations
MaterialEmail to UK sales force about CRM (Advance) interaction entry and “role activity standard” (e.g., 2+ target interactions/day; 5–7 total/day)
Applicable Code year2012
Complaint received08 November 2013
Case completed07 January 2014
Breach clausesClause 15.4
OutcomeBreach found (narrow ground alleged)
AppealNo appeal
SanctionsUndertaking received; additional sanctions: Not stated

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
📋

What happened

  • An anonymous, non-contactable employee complained about an email from a senior employee to the UK sales force about daily entry of customer “interactions” into the CRM system (Advance).
  • The email stated expectations such as “2+ target interactions per day” and “5-7 total interactions per day” as a “role activity standard”, and referenced historic averages (above 7 interactions/day in 2012).
  • The complainant alleged the email failed to reflect the Code requirement to distinguish clearly between expected call rates and expected contact rates, because it only referred to “interactions”.
  • Grünenthal argued the email was administrative (about CRM completeness), not a call-rate briefing; and that “interactions” included 1:1 calls and meeting contacts, with no incentivised call/contact targets.
  • The Panel considered the email went beyond administration and effectively briefed representatives on expected activity levels, so it needed to comply with Clause 15.4 and its supplementary information.
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach found: Clause 15.4 (on the narrow ground alleged—insufficient clarity distinguishing call rates vs contact rates when briefing representatives).
  • No appeal.
  • Undertaking received.
🔒

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

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

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

Subscribe Free