- The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the FAC’s disclosure order in favor of the FDPIC against presumably Moneyhouse.
- The FAC had ordered Moneyhouse to hand over documents on credit rating subscriptions, monthly credit rating queries and data quality in 2014.
- Interference with business secrets was rejected; the FDPIC and the FAC are subject to official secrecy and can redact confidential information.
The Federal Supreme Court protects an edition order of the FAC in favor of the FDPIC against an unnamed partywhich, however, can only be Moneyhouse (see also here). At the request of the FDPIC, the FAC had ordered Moneyhouse to submit documents on the creditworthiness subscriptions in 2014 and on the creditworthiness queries made per month in 2014, as well as documents regarding data quality and accuracy.
Moneyhouse has argued before the Federal Supreme Court that this would interfere with its protected confidentiality. The BGer rejects this argument: the FDPIC and the FAC are subject to the Official Secretsand should the FDPIC publish a recommendation after the conclusion of the fact-finding process, it is up to him to black out confidential information (after consulting Moneyhouse).