AbbVie: internal emails seen as endorsing ‘strategic loitering’ to access hospital HCPs (AUTH/3530/7/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3530/7/21
Parties	Employee (complainant) v AbbVie
Issue	Concerns about instructions to representatives; internal emails describing/endorsing questionable hospital access tactics; allegations about hospitality/venues and face-to-face targets
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	07 July 2021
Case completed	26 May 2022
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1; Clause 15.2
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 9.1 (in relation to other allegations); Clause 15.4
Product mentioned	Rinvoq (mentioned in the representative’s email)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions considered but none required
Appeal	No appeal (Appeal Board consideration of case report and potential additional sanctions)

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 AbbVie UK employee complained that senior management was encouraging the salesforce to behave unethically during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Screenshots showed an internal email from a sales representative describing how they entered a hospital rheumatology department (security-pass access) and used language such as having a prepared reason to gain entry if challenged and “strategic loitering”.
The representative’s manager replied and circulated the response to their entire team; the response included motivational language about “gaining promotional opportunities… deliver our… messaging and win back… opportunities from our competitor” and ended “keep up the great work”.
Additional allegations included: being told to meet HCPs in coffee shops/car parks/picnics; texting HCPs offering ice creams/sandwiches; and being targeted/incentivised to achieve face-to-face call numbers (including a Q3 condition of seeing 35 HCPs face-to-face for bonus, with virtual calls not counting).
The Authority asked AbbVie to consider Clauses 2, 9.1, 15.2 and 15.4 of the 2019 Code.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 15.2 (representative failed to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct, given the language and implied approach to gaining entry).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (manager’s team-wide email was likely to be seen as endorsing/encouraging the conduct; high standards not maintained).
No breach of Clause 15.4 (Panel was concerned but did not find, on balance of probabilities, that calls caused inconvenience or failed to observe wishes/arrangements in force at the hospital).
No breach of Clause 2 (Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted the particular censure of Clause 2).
Allegations about hospitality/venues and face-to-face targets: no breach (insufficient evidence and/or not established that instructions/targets would likely lead to a breach).
Appeal Board reviewed the case report (no appeal) and considered whether to impose additional sanctions; it decided none were 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