Actelion ruled in breach for offering frozen yoghurt at an exhibition stand (AUTH/2873/9/16)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
πŸ“Š

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2873/9/16
ComplainantAnonymous, non-contactable (described as a physician)
CompanyActelion Pharmaceuticals UK
IssueHospitality at an exhibition stand (frozen yoghurt)
EventEuropean Respiratory Society (ERS) Congress, London
Event dates3–7 September 2016
Complaint received15 September 2016
Case completed2 November 2016
Applicable Code year2016
Breach clauses9.1; 22.1
AppealNo appeal
SanctionsUndertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

Download the full case report (PDF)


Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) β€” ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors β€” instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI
πŸ“‹

What happened

  • An anonymous, non-contactable complainant (described as a physician) alleged Actelion offered frozen yoghurt from its exhibition stand at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Congress in London (3–7 September 2016).
  • The complainant referenced a recent PMCPA ruling where another company had been found in breach for serving frozen yoghurt at a congress (Case AUTH/2812/12/15).
  • Actelion provided naturally flavoured frozen yoghurt alongside tea, barista-made coffee and bottled water.
  • Delegates could order frozen yoghurt via iPads in seating areas or at a refreshment counter staffed by contractors; Actelion said it was not advertised and not obvious from the exhibition floor.
  • Actelion said the decision to provide frozen yoghurt was made in April 2016 and it had missed the May 2016 published ruling in AUTH/2812/12/15.
  • The Panel considered the impression created, including that word-of-mouth and visibility of others eating could still draw delegates to the stand.
βš–οΈ

Outcome

  • Breach of Clause 22.1 was ruled: frozen yoghurt at the stand went beyond subsistence and was contrary to the Code’s requirements for exhibition-stand hospitality.
  • Breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled: high standards had not been maintained.
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
Β£249/year
Annual β€” save Β£99
or
Β£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week β€” free.

Subscribe Free