AUTH/2812/12/15: Mylan frozen yoghurt at ESC congress stand ruled beyond subsistence

📅 2015 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2812/12/15
PartiesAnonymous, non-contactable complainant v Mylan
IssueExhibition stand design and hospitality (frozen yoghurt/“ice-cream stand” allegation)
EventEuropean Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress, London (29 Aug–2 Sep 2015)
Complaint received21 December 2015
Case completed2 March 2016
Applicable Code2015
Breach clauses9.1, 22.1
No breach clauses9.7
SanctionsUndertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
AppealNo appeal

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, non-contactable UK health professional complained about exhibition stands at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress in London (29 Aug–2 Sep 2015).
  • The complainant alleged many stands were “extremely extravagant” and created a “party atmosphere”, citing Mylan as having an “ice-cream stand”, and provided photos of the Mylan stand.
  • Mylan said it provided tea/coffee and frozen yoghurt (not ice-cream), ordered via the official stand caterer as required by the organiser, with no signage and not handed out unsolicited (available on request).
  • Mylan stated the stand and materials were reviewed/approved globally and locally, and the stand was also approved by ESC.
  • The Panel assessed whether frozen yoghurt constituted subsistence-only hospitality from an exhibition stand and whether the stand was “extremely extravagant”.
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach of Clause 22.1: frozen yoghurt from the stand went beyond subsistence.
  • Breach of Clause 9.1: high standards had not been maintained.
  • No breach of Clause 9.7: complainant did not substantiate the allegation that the stand was unacceptable due to extravagance/format/size/cost.
  • 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