AUTH/2860/7/16: Health professional complaint about exhibition stands ‘visible to the public’ at restaurant meeting (No breach) – Chiesi | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2860/7/16
Parties	Health Professional v Chiesi
Allegation	Alleged promotion to the public (exhibition stands visible to the public at a restaurant venue)
Meeting context	Independent, third-party meeting supported by purchase of exhibition stand space only
Venue	Named restaurant/events venue with private meeting rooms (restaurant open to the public)
Complaint received	25 July 2016 (HTML) / 26 July 2016 (PDF)
Case completed	08 September 2016
Applicable Code year	2016
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 26.1
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 26.1, 9.1 and 2
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

📋

⌄

A health professional complained about a May 2016 meeting held in a private room at a restaurant that was open to the public.
The complainant alleged pharmaceutical company exhibition stands (including Chiesi’s) were “in full view of the public” and visible from outside.
The PMCPA asked Chiesi to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1 and 26.1.
Chiesi said it supported an independent third-party meeting by purchasing exhibition space only.
Chiesi described controls at the venue: meeting signage, a manned registration desk, an attendance register, closed doors, and steps to prevent public entry.
Chiesi stated external windows had frosting and drapes; internal windows/doors were also covered with opaque film.
Chiesi said stands were positioned at the far right of the room with back panels to the windows and promotional panels facing inward, making them not visible from outside or from the public restaurant area.
Chiesi provided a room plan, CRM approval history, copies of materials displayed, and photographs from an unannounced venue visit in July.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled that there was no evidence that prescription-only medicines had been promoted to the public.
The Panel found no evidence to support the allegation that Chiesi’s stand was in full view of the public and visible from outside.
No breach of the Code was ruled, including no breach of Clause 2.
No breach of Clauses 26.1, 9.1 and 2 was ruled.

🔒

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