Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb: restaurant speaker meetings and concerns about privacy and hospitality (no breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2991/11/17 and AUTH/2992/11/17
Case reference	Anonymous non-contactable v Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable
Respondent/company	Pfizer Limited; Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited
Product(s)	Not stated
Material/channel	Two evening promotional speaker meetings at a restaurant (April 2017 and October 2017)
Key issue	Alleged lack of privacy leading to public hearing promotional content (public promotion) and alleged excessive hospitality/unlimited drinks
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 13 November 2017; Case completed 17 January 2018
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	No breach of Clauses 2, 9.1, 22.1, 26.1
Sanctions	No explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

Download the full case report (PDF)

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

📋

What happened

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant raised concerns about two evening meetings held at a named restaurant in April 2017 and October 2017, organised by Pfizer on behalf of the Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance.
The complainant alleged the meetings were not held in a sufficiently private room (separated by a “thin curtain”), meaning members of the public could hear the talk.
The complainant alleged that during both evenings a Pfizer team member asked members of the public to be quiet because their conversations could be heard over the speaker.
The complainant alleged that several GPs said they attended only for the food and an unlimited supply of drinks.
Pfizer stated the private meeting room was separated from the entrance/bar/service area by a solid wall and a heavy-duty curtain (kept closed during presentations, opened only for food service), the speaker was positioned furthest from the curtain, no audio projection system was used, and there was background music in the public dining area.
Pfizer stated it did not ask members of the public to be quiet; at the October meeting only, it asked restaurant staff outside the room to reduce noise.
April meeting: promotional speaker meeting titled “Atrial Fibrillation: Stroke and How to Prevent it – Stroke Prevention in NVAF Case Studies”; 26 health professionals attended plus two Pfizer staff, two Bristol-Myers Squibb staff and the speaker (31 total). A drink was offered on arrival and a second drink alongside the main course.
October meeting: promotional speaker meeting titled “Modern Management in Primary Care: A Case Study of Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation”; 12 health professionals attended plus two Pfizer staff and the speaker (15 total). Format similar to April.
Hospitality costs submitted: April overall food and drink cost £1119.36 (excluding service charge), £36.11 per head including £11.11 per head on drinks including coffees; October overall food and drink cost £575, £38.33 per head (with £8.90 per head on drinks excluding coffees, per Pfizer’s breakdown).
The Authority asked the companies to consider Clauses 2, 9.1, 22.1 and 26.1.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

The Panel ruled that the complainant had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that members of the public heard the presentation; therefore prescription only medicines had not been promoted to the public and there was no breach of Clause 26.1.
The Panel ruled the complainant had not established that the level of hospitality at either meeting was unacceptable; no breach of Clause 22.1.
The Panel ruled there was no evidence that high standards had not been maintained; no breach of Clause 9.1.
The Panel ruled there was no evidence that Clause 2 had been breached; no breach of Clause 2.
The Panel noted companies were unable to provide itemised evidence about alcohol consumption and stated companies would be well-advised to request relevant details be itemised on bills.

🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown