AUTH/2845/5/16 - CSL Behring v Swedish Orphan Biovitrum

Charity Ball

  • Received
    12 May 2016
  • Case number
    AUTH/2845/5/16
  • Applicable Code year
    2016
  • Completed
    18 August 2016
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    November 2016 Review

Case Summary

​CSL Behring complained about a charity ball held by Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi) and an advertisement/invitation for the event placed in the public domain on both Sobi's and a named charity's website. The advertisement stated, inter alia, the ticket price which included arrival drinks, a three course meal, table wine and entertainment. Sobi's contact details were provided for tickets and further information. It was stated at the bottom of the advertisement in small font that 'Proceeds will be distributed equally between the following three charities:' followed by their names and logos.

CSL Behring stated that the invitation failed to state who the event was for, health professionals, patients, spouses, patient organisations, families, or other. Without knowing who was invited, who attended and in what capacity and the proportion of the entire group they represented, it was impossible to label the meeting as a corporate event. CSL Behring submitted that the event fell within scope of the Code.

CSL Behring alleged that the event did not give the impression that it was primarily an educational event and that the hospitality was secondary to the purpose of the meeting. The event was wholly social and failed to maintain high standards and was therefore unacceptable. Moreover, the offer of entertainment, music, fun, wine and prizes was excessive. In addition, any hospitality must not be paid or facilitated by the company, and must not form part of the official programme of the meeting. CSL Behring alleged that it was not clear from the invitation exactly what Sobi had funded.

CSL Behring was particularly concerned about the involvement of one of the charities given the ongoing commercialisation and development of two of Sobi's medicines. CSL Behring alleged that Sobi had specifically targeted the audience in a therapy area where it had a vested interest and as the invitation failed to set out a clear agenda or indicate who should attend, the impression was one of disguised promotion.

CSL Behring stated that Sobi did not plan to track or monitor who had attended the event and therefore could not claim that the ball was a corporate event which fell outside the scope of the Code Breaches of the Code were alleged including a breach of Clause 2.

The detailed response from Sobi is given below.

The Panel noted Sobi's submission that the charity ball was a corporate event that fell outside the scope of the Code as it did not promote any of Sobi's medicines, nor did it target health professionals, other relevant decision makers or patients. The Panel considered that corporate events, including fund raising activities, were a legitimate activity for a pharmaceutical company to undertake. They were part of normal business practice. Whether a corporate event was covered by the Code would depend on the arrangements. Corporate events covered by the Code had to comply with it.

In the Panel's view, in order to fall outside the scope of the Code corporate events must not otherwise be meetings organised for health professionals, other relevant decision makers or patient organisation representatives and or their members, bearing in mind that meetings organised for such groups which were wholly or mainly of a social or sporting nature were unacceptable. Corporate events could include invited health professionals, other relevant decision makers or patient organisation representatives and/or members but must also include a significant proportion of other invited guests from a different background. Further, the capacity in which health professionals and others were invited to attend such events was an important factor. In the Panel's view inviting health professionals in their capacity as prescribers or as persons who recommended medicines to a corporate event with no educational or scientific input would be in breach of the Code. Such health professionals might be invited to attend in relation to their roles such as senior representatives of professional organisations, hospital trusts, primary care trusts, etc. The Panel noted that the reason that patient organisation representatives and/ or their members had been invited might also be relevant. The Panel noted that the event at issue was advertised through a number of channels and those who wanted to attend could purchase tickets. It appeared that no one was invited personally at Sobi's expense.

 The Panel noted Sobi's submission that it organised the event with the help of three charities in order to raise funds for them and highlight their important work; Sobi would declare the amount donated to the charities in accordance with the Code. The Panel further noted that Sobi had provided significant administrative support and the confirmation letter sent to those who purchased tickets stated that it had payed part of the costs necessary to hire the venue and provide the catering and the evening's entertainment. This was in contrast to Sobi's submission that the cost of the tickets was more than the value of the hospitality and entertainment so all hospitality was paid for by the attendees. The amount paid by Sobi in that regard was unknown.

The Panel noted that the Code provided that pharmaceutical companies could interact with, inter alia, patient organisations to support their work. Taking all the circumstances into account the Panel considered that working with the patient organisations, including those that operated in a field in which Sobi had a commercial interest, to raise money for those organisations was a matter covered by the Code.

The Panel noted that the event was open to anyone who wanted to buy a ticket. The attendee list showed a spread of attendees, primarily Sobi employees, patient organisations and healthcare agencies including partners, family and friends; overall the Panel did not consider that the ball was a meeting organised for health professionals or patient organisation members per se. Attendees had to purchase their own tickets. Sobi had not controlled who could buy tickets and in that regard attendees were not guests of the company. The Panel noted Sobi's submission that no health professionals attended the event at Sobi's invitatio or expense and as far as Sobi was aware only three or four attendees might qualify as a health professional as defined in the Code and none prescribed Sobi products; they had attended as guests of the charities or other non-pharmaceutical companies that purchased tickets. The Panel considered, on balance that Sobi had organised a charitable event that was open to anyone who wished to purchase a ticket; it was not aimed at health professionals, other relevant decision maker or patient organisations per se and no breach of the Code was ruled. The Panel noted Sobi's submission that the charity ball was a non-promotional event at which there was no direct or indirect promotion of Sobi's medicines. The Panel did not consider that the event was promotional nor were the raffle items offered as an inducement. In the exceptional circumstances of this case the Panel therefore ruled no breach of the Code.

The Panel noted its comments above and Sobi's submission that the event was non-promotional. In that regard, the event could not be disguised promotion and no breach of the Code was ruled.

The Panel did not consider that Sobi had failed to maintain high standards and so no breach of the Code was ruled. The Panel noted its rulings and further ruled no breach of Clause 2.


​​