← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Anonymous v Merck Sharp & Dohme: LinkedIn-targeted meeting advert seen by a patient (No breach)

📅 2019 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/3361/6/20
ComplainantAnonymous
CompanyMerck Sharp & Dohme
IssueLinkedIn sponsored/targeted post advertising a promotional meeting; concern it was viewable by non-HCPs/patients and could encourage registration attempts
PlatformLinkedIn
Material referenceGB-NON-02728
Therapy area/topicType 2 diabetes; established cardiovascular disease
Complaint received08 June 2020
Case completed04 February 2021
Applicable Code year2019
Clauses consideredClause 9.1; Clause 11.1
RulingNo breach
AppealNo appeal

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 complainant challenged a Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) UK LinkedIn sponsored/targeted post advertising a pharmaceutical promotional meeting on managing type 2 diabetes in patients with established cardiovascular disease.
  • The post stated it was for “UK health professionals and other relevant NHS stakeholders” and that the meeting was organised and funded by MSD and MSD products would be discussed.
  • The complainant said their brother (a person with diabetes, not an HCP) saw the advert in his LinkedIn feed, was disappointed he could not register, and felt patients’ social media feeds should not be targeted by pharma—especially where they cannot attend.
  • The Authority asked MSD to consider Clauses 9.1 and 11.1.
  • MSD said the post was a targeted sponsored post only shown to users meeting all pre-set criteria (job title, industry, skills, age >25, UK), would not appear on the public MSD UK feed, and comments were disabled.
  • MSD said registration required self-declaration and then validation (e.g., professional body details such as GMC number for HCPs; verifiable contact details for other decision makers), with real-time matching to an internal validated customer database and manual checks where needed.
  • MSD said it could not prevent a targeted recipient from sharing the post, and suggested the brother may have seen a shared version (the screenshot showed “edited” rather than “promoted”).
  • MSD said the material (ref GB-NON-02728) expired on 11 June 2020 and was superseded by an updated version; MSD also refined targeting and removed “pharmaceuticals” from segmentation criteria for the latest post in circulation.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • No breach of the Code.
  • No breach of Clause 11.1: the Panel found no evidence MSD was directly responsible for the complainant’s brother viewing the targeted post.
  • No breach of Clause 9.1: the Panel did not consider MSD failed to maintain high standards, given the targeting and registration controls described.
🔒

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
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training