AUTH/3894/4/24: Complainant v Merck Serono — LinkedIn post by UK HCP ruled out of scope (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3894/4/24
Parties	Complainant v Merck Serono Limited
Complaint received	27 April 2024
Case completed	19 June 2025
Applicable Code year	2021
Channel	LinkedIn post by a UK health professional linking to presentation slides
Event context	Meeting in Barcelona, Spain (27 April 2024), organised and funded by Merck Global (Germany), intended for a global HCP audience
Medicine referenced	Cladribine tablets (UK-specific data included in slides)
Panel decision (initial)	Found scope and promotion; ruled breaches of Clauses 26.1, 26.2, 12.1 and 5.1 (x2) (plus no breach of Clauses 8.3, 26.4, 3.6, 2 and an additional no breach of 5.1)
Appeal outcome	Appeal successful; Appeal Board ruled Clause 1.2 not engaged (no authority by Merck UK or Merck Global), therefore out of scope and no breaches
Final clauses (no breach)	2, 3.6, 5.1, 8.3, 12.1, 26.1, 26.2, 26.4
Sanctions	None stated

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant challenged a UK health professional’s LinkedIn post that linked to slides from a Barcelona (Spain) meeting (27 April 2024) organised and funded by Merck Serono’s German parent (Merck Global).
The LinkedIn post included an image of the opening slide (with a prominent Merck logo) and a link to a 57-slide deck.
The deck contained extensive content about cladribine tablets (mentioned 134 times) including UK-specific real-world evidence graphics (eg “UK population”, Union Jack, N=2,684).
Merck Serono UK said it did not organise/fund the meeting, did not engage/brief the speaker, and did not ask/instruct the HCP to post on social media; Merck Global asked the HCP to remove the post and it was removed.
The Panel initially found the post/deck in scope and promotional, and ruled breaches (later appealed).
On appeal, the Appeal Board concluded the post/slides were not placed on LinkedIn with the authority of Merck UK or Merck Global, so Clause 1.2 was not engaged and the matter was out of scope of the Code.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code (Appeal Board: matter out of scope; Clause 1.2 not engaged).
Panel’s earlier breach findings (Clauses 26.1, 26.2, 12.1 and 5.1 (x2)) were overturned on appeal because the Code did not apply on these facts.
Appeal by Merck Serono was successful.

📖

⌄

No Breach of Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
No Breach of Clause 3.6 Requirement that materials and activities must not be disguised promotion
No Breach of Clause 5.1 (x3) [Panel’s breach ruling overturned x2] Requirement to maintain high standards at all times
No Breach of Clause 8.3 Requirement to certify non-promotional material
No Breach of Clause 12.1 [Panel’s breach ruling overturned] Requirement to include up-to-date prescribing information
No Breach of Clause 26.1 [Panel’s breach ruling overturned] Requirement to not advertise prescription only medicines to the public
No Breach of Clause 26.2 [Panel’s breach ruling overturned] Requirement that information about prescription only medicines which is made available to the public must be factual, balanced, must not raise unfounded hopes of successful treatment or encourage the public to ask their health professional to prescribe a specific prescription only medicine.
No Breach of Clause 26.4 Requirement to include a ‘reporting of side effects’ statement in any material which relates to a medicine and which is intended for patients taking that medicine

🔒

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