Fairness Commission: When is comparative advertising allowed?
In principle, it is permitted to compare products and services in advertising. However, the offers must be comparable and the statement must not be incorrect or misleading. The Fair Trading Commission points this out in current cases.
One institute claimed that its "teaching system is the only comprehensive one in German-speaking countries and worldwide." Although the school had developed the system itself, it failed to provide evidence as to how it could be described as a "single comprehensive teaching system". The Second Chamber of the Swiss Fairness Commission, SLK, wrote: "This type of communication is unfair because the institute will not be the only one in the world that can provide this teaching service."
A comparison is also problematic if an advertising statement claims to be "The cheapest and fastest legal advice, even for non-members". The decisive factor here is whether the average addressee can make a comparison in terms of price and service. Although both parties provided various details in this regard, no comparison could be made, particularly with regard to the duration, which would be necessary in order to determine "cheapest" and "fastest" legal advice. The Second Chamber therefore asked the firm to refrain from making such statements.
A comparison is also problematic if an advertising statement claims to be "The cheapest and fastest legal advice, even for non-members". The decisive factor here is whether the average addressee can make a comparison in terms of price and service. Although both parties provided various details in this regard, no comparison could be made, particularly with regard to the duration, which would be necessary in order to determine "cheapest" and "fastest" legal advice. The Second Chamber therefore asked the firm to refrain from making such statements.
Another case: complaint dismissed
However, the Commission took a different view of the case of a language institute that advertised "Fast progress guaranteed!". The complainant disputed that learning progress could be guaranteed, as this also depended on the student. The Fairness Commission disagreed and rejected the complaint. It wrote: "It is not a concrete learning success that is promised (e.g. passing an exam), but an undefined progress that depends on the subjective perception of the participant."
