AUTH/3243/9/19: Ex-employee complaint about Allergan commercial policy (Botox, Juvederm, CoolSculpting) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3243/9/19
Complainant	Ex-employee
Company	Allergan Limited
Products	Botox (botulinum toxin Type A, POM); Juvederm (CE marked class III medical devices); CoolSculpting (CE marked class II medical device)
Issue	Alleged portfolio “bundling”/commercial overlay discount creating an incentive to prescribe Botox
Materials referenced	Two presentations: “Proposed Portfolio Commercial Policy Overlay” (dated 3 July 2018) and “Working together in partnership” / “Working Together in Partnership to Develop Medical and Business Outcomes” (undated; some slides marked “draft proposal”)
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 18.1
Panel decision	No breach (arrangements considered terms of trade relating to prices/margins/discounts; exemption applied)
Complaint received	29 July 2019
Case completed	22 November 2019
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2019

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 ex-employee complained about Allergan’s commercial policy for aesthetic products: Botox (POM) and the medical devices Juvederm and CoolSculpting.
The complainant alleged a “commercial overlay policy” effectively bundled the three products, creating a financial incentive to prescribe Botox (eg reduced Botox price linked to portfolio revenue/thresholds for large clinic chains).
The complainant supplied two presentations describing proposed/available commercial terms (one dated 3 July 2018; one undated), including references to “cross selling opportunities”.
The PMCPA asked Allergan to consider Clauses 2, 9.1 and 18.
Allergan said the materials and discussions were business-to-business terms of trade (pricing/discounts), not promotion; it denied bundling/conditionality, exclusivity or any transfer of value to prescribers.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 18.1 (Panel considered the arrangements were terms of trade relating to prices/margins/discounts and could benefit from the exemption).
Consequently, no breach of Clause 9.1.
Consequently, no breach of Clause 2.
Overall: No breach of the Code.

🔒

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