First complaint about native advertising
Inadequate separation of content and advertising
A media company based in French-speaking Switzerland had posted a video on its website about allegedly questionable ingredients in traditional cosmetic products. Although the video was labeled «Sponsorisé» above the short introductory text, there was no corresponding notice in the video itself. Moreover, the term itself was misleading, as this was by no means an editorial piece financed by a sponsor, but rather a commercial communication by a natural cosmetics manufacturer intended to give the appearance of an editorial piece. The piece thus clearly violated the principle of separation No. 3.12, Section 1 of the Fairness Commission, which requires a clear distinction between content and advertising.Furthermore, the article itself was unfair, as it denounced an entire product group as harmful to health and the environment. It thus violated Art. 3(1)(e) of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). Accordingly, it is considered unfair for anyone to «compare themselves, their goods, (…) with others (…) in an inaccurate, misleading, or unnecessarily disparaging (…) manner.».
Failing to disclose lower prices for direct bookings
«…shows the price for the hotel when you book directly with them.» That’s how a hotel search engine advertised its services in a TV commercial. This annoyed a hotelier. He filed a complaint with the SLK because, in many cases, the prices for direct bookings on a hotel’s website—which are often cheaper than those on the relevant booking platforms—were being omitted. The Second Chamber upheld the complaint, since the average consumer would interpret the statement «…shows the price for the hotel when you book directly there» to mean that the price for direct booking is taken into account in every hotel comparison.
Appeal Granted
During the plenary session, the three chambers in session had to rule on five appeals. Of these, one was granted and three were dismissed, while one case was definitively dismissed. For the first time in many years, an appeal was granted. The reason for this was that, in the plenary session’s view, the chamber that had initially heard the case had not given sufficient consideration to the fact that the actual target audience of the advertisement was not the end consumer but rather specialty retailers. Against this background, the definition of the general term «original replacement part—within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Notice or the GVO» was sufficiently clear. However, the SLK could not grant the appellant’s request to obtain an expert opinion from the Competition Commission to clarify the facts of the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. In another case, the Fair Trading Commission discontinued the proceedings. However, it ordered the respondent to refrain in the future from stating that Swiss cows have «family ties.» It also became clear during the appeal proceedings, however, that the chamber of first instance would likely have reached a different decision on the merits had it been presented not only with the disputed subject matter but with the entire campaign. This is because, according to Principle No. 1.1, Section 2 of the SLK, an advertisement must also be assessed in light of the underlying message of the overall campaign. As always, the detailed reasoning behind all decisions can be found on the website fair-advertising.ch in the «Decisions".Every person has the right and is entitled to report commercial communications that they believe to be unfair can be reported to the Swiss Fair Advertising Commission (SLK). The SLK has served as the advertising industry’s self-regulatory body since 1966. In addition to industry associations, the SLK includes representatives from the Federal Office of Public Health, the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), the City of Zurich’s Office for Gender Equality, the Lottery and Betting Commission (Comlot), the Institute for Intellectual Property, and consumer associations. Since 2012, the Swiss Fair Trading Commission has been chaired by National Council member Christine Bulliard-Marbach.
