SLK: The metaphorical "lime cube test
The Fair Trading Commission ruled on a commercial for a lime cleaner that a competitor had challenged on two separate grounds. Half of the complaint was upheld.
Is this one TV commercial or are there two? Is the lime cleaner as strong as claimed? And does its effect also apply to the co-advertised active foam? These were three of the questions that the Second Chamber of the Swiss Fair Trading Commission had to answer at its last meeting in 2013. With reference to the average consumer, half of the complaint was upheld.
Specifically, the case involved a two-part TV commercial for bathroom cleaning products totaling 30 seconds in length; two-thirds of the time was devoted to a limescale cleaner, and the last ten seconds to a so-called active show. A competitor objected to this advertisement twice. On the one hand the lime cleaner did not have at all the claimed effect. Secondly, the smooth transition from one product to another gave the impression that the active foam also had a lime-dissolving effect. Both mislead consumers and are therefore unfair.
False impression, statthy test
The Second Chamber of the Fairness Commission (SLK) gave a differentiated ruling. It did not support the first part of the appeal, but did support the second part. In the opinion of the chamber members and experts, it was clear to the average consumer that the "lime cube test" shown was merely a metaphor for the effect of the product, which in itself was undisputed. This was all the more true since in reality no whole lime cubes had to be removed in the bathroom, but only deposits on surfaces and fittings. The Second Chamber, on the other hand, upheld the appeal insofar as the transition between the advertising for the two cleaners was fluid, both products had the same area of application and no separate statements were made about the effect of the active foam. This gave the impression that the foam cleaner was a product variant with the same effect. In the eyes of the SLK, this was therefore a misleading representation within the meaning of Art. 3 Para. 1 lit. b of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).
Other cases of the Second Chamber
In total, the Second Board dealt with eight appeals; including one against the advertising of milk as a "natural fitness program." According to the complainant, this statement was untrue and misleading, as studies had long since proven that milk consumption made people ill. The complaint was rejected, as was the complaint against a garage based in the municipality of Lamone, just five kilometers outside Lugano, which advertised with the place name Lamone-Lugano. On the other hand, the complaints against the claim "Free calls to all Swiss networks", a violation of the Robinson list of the Swiss Direct Marketing Association (SDV) and an advertisement of an internet agency with the plump, only slightly covered breasts of a woman and the claim "Soignez votre vitrine sur le web", which was defended as humorous, were approved.
