AUTH/2813/12/15: Anonymous (non-contactable) v Pfizer — exhibition stand hospitality at ESC Congress (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2813/12/15
Parties	Anonymous, non-contactable complainant v Pfizer
Issue	Exhibition stand design and hospitality; alleged extravagance/party atmosphere; alleged provision of a named proprietary flavoured iced drink
Event	European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress, London (29 Aug–2 Sep 2015)
Applicable Code	2015
Clauses considered	9.1, 9.7, 22.1
Panel finding	No breach of the Code
Key reasoning	Hospitality was near the limit but acceptable; complainant provided insufficient evidence of extravagance; complainant non-contactable so decision based on available evidence
Complaint received	21 December 2015
Case completed	8 February 2016
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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 complainant (self-described 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 the majority of stands were “extremely extravagant” and created a “party atmosphere” rather than a scientific congress atmosphere.
Three examples were cited, including an allegation that Pfizer gave out a named proprietary flavoured iced drink.
Pfizer explained it had three stands: two Pfizer-only stands (bottled water only; no giveaways; no entertainment/music) and one Eliquis (apixaban) stand run on behalf of the BMS–Pfizer Alliance.
For the Eliquis stand, Pfizer described professional scientific activity (screens, presentations by key opinion leaders) and a refreshment booth serving coffee, tea, hot chocolate, chai latte, flavoured iced drinks, iced coffee, small chocolates, and water.
Pfizer stated the Alliance did not serve the proprietary drink named by the complainant and argued the cold drink option was not an inducement to visit the stand.
The Panel noted the complainant could not be contacted for further detail; the complaint had to be judged on the evidence available.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 22.1 (hospitality) — the range of beverages was “on the limits of acceptability” but overall not contrary to the Code.
No breach of Clause 9.7 (extremes of format/size/cost) — the complainant did not provide supporting material and did not specify what was “extravagant”.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) — based on the above rulings.
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