Lausanne, Switzerland – Chocolate manufacturer Läderach has won a legal dispute against Swiss public broadcaster SRG SSR, with the Swiss Federal Court ruling that an article published on SRG’s Swissinfo platform violated the company’s personality rights. The case centered on the use of the English term “dropped” in connection with Läderach and its former sponsorship arrangements, a phrasing the court found misleading and damaging to the company’s reputation.
The legal battle stemmed from a Swissinfo article published in April 2021, which reported on the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs (EDA) reducing its list of sponsoring partners from 83 to 36. The EDA had been reviewing its partners based on sustainability and reputational concerns, particularly within the tobacco, arms, and raw materials industries. The court determined that the article’s wording created a false impression that Läderach had been deliberately removed from the EDA’s partner list due to reputational issues.
Specifically, the court took issue with the phrasing used to describe how both the EDA and Swiss International Air Lines had “dropped” Läderach. The article stated that Swiss had not renewed a contract for Läderach chocolates on board its flights. Läderach argued that it had never been actively partnered with the EDA and that the language implied a negative reason for the non-renewal of the airline contract. The Federal Court agreed, stating the wording did not accurately reflect the situation and presented the chocolatier in a negative light.
Swissinfo has been ordered to remove the offending passage and publish a summary of the court’s ruling prominently for 30 days. While Läderach will not receive financial compensation, SRG SSR will be responsible for paying 18,000 Swiss francs in court costs and legal fees, as reported by 20min.ch.
Background to the Dispute
The origin of the dispute lies in a report initially published by the NZZ am Sonntag on April 25, 2021, concerning the EDA’s reduction of its sponsorship partners. The Swissinfo article subsequently referenced this report. The court’s decision highlights the importance of precise language in reporting, particularly when it concerns the reputation of businesses and individuals. The use of “dropped,” according to the court, suggested a deliberate severing of ties based on negative perceptions.
Läderach’s legal team successfully argued that the company had no active collaboration with the EDA, and the phrasing created a misleading narrative. The court emphasized that an average reader could reasonably interpret the article as implying Läderach was removed from the EDA list and that Swiss terminated its contract due to concerns about the company’s values. This interpretation, the court found, was inaccurate.
SRG SSR’s Response and Previous Scrutiny
SRG SSR has accepted the court’s ruling and will comply with the order to remove the passage and publish the summary. The organization had previously argued that it was defending the constitutionally protected freedom of the press, but ultimately accepted the court’s decision. persoenlich.com reports that SRG SSR will implement the ruling within the specified timeframe.
This legal challenge comes after Läderach faced public scrutiny in 2020 when members of the owning family’s involvement in evangelical Christian groups – which hold views opposing same-sex partnerships and abortion rights – became a topic of public discussion. SRF, another SRG SSR platform, aired a documentary titled “The Evangelical World of Läderach – Chastisement in the Name of God” exploring these connections.
Implications for Media Reporting
This ruling sets a precedent for media organizations operating in Switzerland, emphasizing the demand for careful and accurate reporting, particularly when dealing with potentially sensitive issues related to corporate reputation. The case underscores the importance of avoiding language that could be interpreted as defamatory or misleading, even when reporting on broader trends or changes in sponsorship arrangements. The court’s decision in this Tages-Anzeiger report demonstrates a willingness to protect the personality rights of companies against potentially damaging misrepresentations.
Looking ahead, media outlets will likely review their editorial processes to ensure greater precision in their reporting, particularly when using potentially loaded language. The case also highlights the potential for legal challenges when reporting on the connections between a company’s ownership and their personal beliefs, especially when those beliefs are controversial.
What are your thoughts on the balance between freedom of the press and protecting corporate reputation? Share your perspective in the comments below.
