AUTH/3544/7/21: Anonymous v Lundbeck — representative contact and call rates (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3544/7/21
Parties	Anonymous v Lundbeck
Issue	Representative contact and call rates; alleged lack of briefing/SOP definitions; alleged uncertified virtual promotional materials; alleged lack of high standards
Applicable Code	2019
Complaint received	20 July 2021
Case completed	25 April 2022
Appeal	No appeal
Clauses cited	2, 9.1, 14.1, 15.4, 15.10, 15.9
Decision	No breach (and no ruling on 15.10)
Sanctions	None

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 complainant alleged that between July 2020 and June 2021 Lundbeck sales representatives were not briefed on how often health professionals could be called upon.
The complainant alleged excessive calls were being made (stating that more than three calls were regularly recorded in the customer recording system, contrary to Code guidance that three calls were the maximum).
The complainant alleged calls vs contacts were not defined for representatives because there was no guidance in a standard operating procedure (SOP).
The complainant alleged promotional materials/items were not approved for virtual use and there was no SOP guidance about remote calls.
The complainant alleged Lundbeck knew the activities were inappropriate but had not made a voluntary admission, and also alleged the compliance culture was not transparent.
Lundbeck said it investigated, reviewed its CRM, and stated that calls (as defined by the Code) did not exceed 3 per year for any customer in the period; it also described multiple rounds of compliance training and stated virtual materials/emails available via the remote platform were certified for virtual use.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 15.9 (Panel did not accept that there were no briefings; complainant did not discharge burden of proof).
No breach of Clause 15.4 (complainant did not establish excessive calls; Lundbeck’s CRM review did not identify >3 calls per customer per year in the period).
No ruling on Clause 15.10 (Panel considered it a statement of principle and said it could not be breached).
No breach of Clause 14.1 (no evidence provided that materials were not approved for virtual use).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (no evidence provided that high standards were not maintained).
No breach of Clause 2 (consequentially, no failure to comply with Clause 2).
No appeal.

🔒

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