Gene­ric selec­tors
Only exact hits
search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selec­tors

Posts rela­ted to

UWG 3 I lit. o

SLK: Deci­si­on No. 172/20 on the ban on spam 

In its deci­si­on no. 172/20, the Swiss Com­mis­si­on for Fair­ness (SLK) dealt with the que­sti­on of when the sen­ding of elec­tro­nic adver­ti­sing messages is “mass” (wit­hin the mea­ning of Art. 3 para. 1 lit. o UCA). In doing so, it sta­ted that it is not the num­ber of e‑mails sent (“quan­ti­ta­ti­ve approach”) that is important, but rather the num­ber of e‑mails sent.

Moti­on Christ (20.3113): Put an end to moun­tains of paper waste. Opt-in ins­tead of opt-out solu­ti­on for unad­dres­sed adver­ti­sing mailings. 

Moti­on Christ (20.3113): Put an end to moun­tains of paper waste. Opt-in ins­tead of opt-out solu­ti­on for unad­dres­sed adver­ti­sing mai­lings Sub­mit­ted text The Federal Coun­cil is inst­ruc­ted to adapt the legis­la­ti­on so that the­re is a chan­ge from the cur­rent opt-out system to an opt-in system for unad­dres­sed mail­box adver­ti­sing. Adver­ti­sing should only be recei­ved by tho­se who expli­ci­tly want it. Otherwise

Inter­pel­la­ti­on Mar­ti (19.3659): Swiss­com laun­ches data octo­pus Beem: How is this com­pa­ti­ble with the Confederation’s ownership strategy? 

Inter­pel­la­ti­on Mar­ti (19.3659): Swiss­com laun­ches data octo­pus Beem: How is this com­pa­ti­ble with the Confederation’s ownership stra­te­gy? Sub­mit­ted text In recent weeks, the public has been infor­med about exten­si­ve tech­no­lo­gi­cal chan­ges in the adver­ti­sing mar­ket. With Beem, Swiss­com wants to make “clas­sic adver­ti­sing cam­pai­gns inter­ac­ti­ve and smart­pho­ne-enab­led,” as sta­ted in

OGer ZH (6.2.18): App­li­ca­ti­on of Art. 3 para. 1 lit. o UWG (ban on spam) fai­led due to de mini­mis threshold 

In Febru­a­ry 2018, the Zurich Supre­me Court pro­tec­ted a non-accep­t­ance order of the Zurich-Sihl public prosecutor’s office (Deci­si­on UE170371 of Feb. 6, 2018, Swiss­lex). It con­cer­ned three unso­li­ci­ted emails from a Peruvi­an law firm that rea­ched the com­p­lai­nant and his office col­league. The addres­see, an unna­med (but easi­ly iden­ti­fia­ble) intel­lec­tu­al pro­per­ty law prac­ti­tio­ner, was sent

FDPIC – “Spam” in the mail­box or: the nui­sance of address trading 

A peren­ni­al hot topic among data pri­va­cy issu­es is the tra­de in addres­ses and per­so­nal data for mar­ke­ting pur­po­ses. The fact that this tra­de is flou­ris­hing is shown by the volu­me of unso­li­ci­ted adver­ti­sing mai­lings and calls, which can beco­me a nui­sance for many citi­zens. Alt­hough the Data Pro­tec­tion Act does not pro­hi­bit the tra­de in addres­ses, it sets