Fairness Commission: size matters
According to the Price Disclosure Ordinance, mandatory information in commercial communications must be simple and clearly legible. This includes a font size that can be read without magnification. The Fair Trading Commission recently had to address such a case.
A consumer was interested in the leasing conditions of a car because of an advertisement in the Sunday press. However, these were reproduced in a font size that could not be read without a magnifying glass. The consumer complained about this to the Fair Trading Commission, which upheld his complaint. Although there are currently no specific standards for font size, the general rules of the Price Indication Ordinance (PBV) can be used as an analogy. Article 14 (1) states that the information must be clear - and therefore clearly legible.
The Commission criticizes the leasing conditions as being clearly too small. It writes: "The general rule is that in commercial communication, information must be presented in such a size that it can be perceived with the average attention that an average addressee would pay to the corresponding advertising medium."
In the case in question, however, this was not the case, said the First Chamber of the Commission. "A sufficiently clear indication within the meaning of Art. 14 para. 1 PBV can therefore no longer be affirmed." The respondent has admitted that it made a mistake, has accepted the complaint and will refrain from using this type of communication of mandatory information (so-called leagel lines) in future.
The Commission criticizes the leasing conditions as being clearly too small. It writes: "The general rule is that in commercial communication, information must be presented in such a size that it can be perceived with the average attention that an average addressee would pay to the corresponding advertising medium."
In the case in question, however, this was not the case, said the First Chamber of the Commission. "A sufficiently clear indication within the meaning of Art. 14 para. 1 PBV can therefore no longer be affirmed." The respondent has admitted that it made a mistake, has accepted the complaint and will refrain from using this type of communication of mandatory information (so-called leagel lines) in future.
