AUTH/3232/7/19 & AUTH/3233/7/19: Public complaint about POM congress stand visibility (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/3232/7/19 and AUTH/3233/7/19
Parties	Member of the public v Eli Lilly and Company Limited and Boehringer Ingelheim Limited (the Alliance)
Issue	Alleged promotion of prescription-only medicines to the public via visibility/readability of congress stand materials from a public/shared area
Products	Jardiance (empagliflozin); Trajenta (linagliptin)
Event/location	Clinical Pharmacy Congress (CPC), ExCeL London (7–8 June)
Complaint received	27 July 2019
Case completed	5 December 2019
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	Clause 9.1; Clause 26.1
Panel decision	No breach of Clause 26.1; No breach of Clause 9.1
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable member of the public complained about an Alliance (Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly) exhibition stand at the Clinical Pharmacy Congress (CPC) at ExCeL London (7–8 June).
The stand promoted prescription-only medicines Jardiance (empagliflozin) and Trajenta (linagliptin) for certain patients with type 2 diabetes.
The complainant alleged promotional literature was clearly visible to people passing through a public/shared area (“Boulevard”/public gallery), including children at a nearby coffee stand, and provided photographs.
The Authority asked the companies to consider Clauses 9.1 and 26.1.
Boehringer Ingelheim (responding for the Alliance) said SOPs/training required stands not be accessible or visible to the public; they expected physical screens at the entrance but these were not in place.
On noticing potential visibility from the Boulevard, staff contacted Ethics & Compliance and the organiser; they attempted to take the stand down but were told it was not possible due to health and safety, so they covered the panels instead and kept them covered for the rest of the congress.
The Alliance disputed the complainant’s photos were taken from the coffee area and provided its own photo from the coffee area, stating the messaging was not legible from there.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 26.1 was ruled.
No breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled.
The Panel accepted the public could likely see the exhibition area from the communal coffee area, but found the complainant had not shown (on the balance of probabilities) that the public could read the stand content from there.

🔒

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