AUTH/2730/9/14: Anonymous health professional v Merck Serono — ESHRE congress hospitality and sponsorship (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2730/9/14
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable fertility health professional
Company	Merck Serono
Event	European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) 2014, Munich
Product referenced	Gonal-f (follitropin alpha)
Main issues alleged	Late-night drinking with HCPs; repeat sponsorship of same HCPs; prescribing-linked invitation decision
Applicable Code year	2014
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 18.1, 19.1
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	9 September 2014
Case completed	14 January 2015
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable fertility health professional complained about Merck Serono personnel conduct at the ESHRE 2014 conference in Munich.
Allegation 1: A named employee and sales team were in hotel restaurants and bars with fertility health professionals, drinking alcohol into the early hours every night, creating an inappropriate/unprofessional impression.
Allegation 2: Merck Serono hosted the same health professionals year after year (particularly those using Merck Serono products), not supporting wider professional education.
Allegation 3: The complainant was allegedly told by a local sales representative they did not prescribe enough Gonal-f (follitropin alpha) to warrant an invitation to attend ESHRE with Merck Serono.
Merck Serono denied the allegations, stated arrangements were certified in advance, and provided invoices/expense data and selection process information (medical-led, objective criteria).
The Panel noted the complainant provided no supporting evidence and, being non-contactable, could not be asked for more detail; the burden of proof remained with the complainant.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 19.1 (hospitality) in relation to restaurant dinners and hotel bar activity.
No breach of Clauses 2 and 9.1 (disrepute/high standards) regarding alleged unprofessional impression.
No breach of Clauses 18.1, 9.1 and 2 regarding alleged prescribing-linked sponsorship/invitations.
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