AUTH/2937/2/17: Anonymous (non-contactable) v Merck Serono — consent requests for email/text communications (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2937/2/17
Company	Merck Serono Limited
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable (described as an oncology nurse specialist)
Product	Erbitux (cetuximab)
Therapy area / indication mentioned	Metastatic colorectal cancer; squamous cell cancer of the head and neck
Main issue	Alleged repeated, forceful requests to obtain consent for email/text communications despite refusal
Clauses considered	15.2; 15.9
Applicable Code year	2016
Outcome	No breach
Complaint received	16 February 2017
Case completed	17 March 2017
Appeal	No appeal
Additional sanctions	None stated

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 (described as an oncology nurse specialist) complained about a Merck Serono representative promoting Erbitux (cetuximab).
The complainant alleged the representative repeatedly tried to obtain consent for the company’s electronic communication system (email and text), despite being told “no”.
The complainant said the representative asked on every visit, was “quite forceful”, and staff felt pressured; the complainant viewed email/text contact as invasive and unwelcome.
The PMCPA asked Merck Serono to respond in relation to Clauses 15.2 and 15.9 (Applicable Code year: 2016).
Merck Serono said it investigated, had an approved consent-collection process, trained representatives in 2016, and had briefing documents; it also issued additional guidance to field staff after the complaint.
Merck Serono stated representatives were not incentivised/bonused and had no KPIs/targets for collecting consent.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found the complainant had not provided sufficient information to identify the particular circumstances and could not be contacted for more detail.
The Panel found no evidence that a representative had repeatedly asked for consent as alleged, and the complaint was not proven on the balance of probabilities.
No breach of Clauses 15.2 and 15.9 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