AUTH/2941/2/17: Health professional consultant v Merck Sharp & Dohme (webcast invitation) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2941/2/17
Parties	Health professional consultant to a pharmaceutical company v Merck Sharp & Dohme
Material	Invitation email to live webcast (“Cardiovascular Matters… Improving the CV Health of Britain”)
Distribution	Third-party email via Pulse (consented list); also other providers and rep-delivered hard copy invites (providers named in report but not reproduced in CASE_TEXT)
Main issue	Promotional email invite with no prescribing information and no clarity on what was being promoted
Clauses cited	4.1, 9.1
Panel decision	No breach of Clause 4.1; No breach of Clause 9.1
Reasoning (in brief)	No direct or implied mention of any medicine in the invitation; therefore PI not required for the invite
Complaint received	23 February 2017
Case completed	9 May 2017
Applicable Code year	2016
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 (consultant to a pharmaceutical company; employing company named as Novartis in the report) complained in a private capacity about an email invitation to a live webcast from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD).
The email subject line stated: “MSD Promotional Email; Cardiovascular Matters Part 1 – Online webcast register today”.
The body stated it contained promotional information and that the recipient had opted in via Pulse (a third party), and included “This event is organised and fully funded by MSD” plus the MSD logo.
The webcast series was titled “Cardiovascular matters Improving the CV health of Britain” (first of three webcasts) and featured two external expert speakers on CV risk and treatment strategies.
The complainant alleged the emails were promotional but did not state what was being promoted and did not include prescribing information (PI), either in the email or via a link.
MSD said it classified the activity/invitation as promotional (given the therapy area and marketing/sales involvement) but argued the invitation was not “promotional material for a medicine” because it did not mention any specific medicine, so PI was not required.

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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