Swiss Tribunals’ Treatment Of Labeling Disputes
I. Legal Framework Governing Labeling Disputes in Switzerland
Labeling disputes before Swiss tribunals typically arise from:
Mislabeling or incomplete labeling
Language and origin markings
Allergen, ingredient, or composition disclosures
Regulatory non-compliance affecting marketability
Contractual warranties and representations
Swiss tribunals apply:
Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) – contractual liability
Federal Act on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles (FSA) (by analogy in private disputes)
Federal Act against Unfair Competition (UCA)
Mandatory foreign labeling laws when goods are destined abroad
New York Convention & Swiss PILA for arbitral review
Swiss courts do not enforce public penalties, but adjudicate civil consequences of labeling failures.
II. Arbitrability and Public Policy
Case Law 1: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, ATF 132 III 389
Principle
Disputes touching mandatory regulatory provisions remain arbitrable if the tribunal:
Does not impose or negate administrative sanctions
Limits relief to contractual or civil consequences
Application to Labeling
Labeling disputes involving:
Food law
Consumer protection
Pharmaceutical regulations
Are arbitrable when framed as breach of warranty, misrepresentation, or non-conformity.
III. Contractual Conformity and Implied Warranties
Case Law 2: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, ATF 129 III 727
Key Holding
Goods must conform not only to express specifications, but also to:
Legitimate expectations of usability
Regulatory prerequisites for lawful sale
Labeling Significance
Incorrect or incomplete labeling constitutes objective non-conformity, even if:
Product quality is otherwise acceptable
The defect does not affect physical safety
Swiss tribunals treat lawful marketability as an implied contractual condition.
IV. Reliance on Regulatory Findings
Case Law 3: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_150/2012
Principle
Arbitral tribunals may rely on:
Regulatory inspection reports
Market-withdrawal notices
Customs seizures
Without violating public policy.
Labeling Application
Regulatory findings are treated as:
Strong factual evidence
Not automatically binding
Tribunals independently assess:
Contractual responsibility
Causation
Damage scope
V. Misrepresentation and Unfair Competition
Case Law 4: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, ATF 137 III 199
Key Doctrine
Misleading labeling may amount to:
Contractual misrepresentation
Unfair competition under the UCA
Practical Effect
Swiss tribunals examine:
Whether labeling created false consumer impressions
Whether the buyer relied on label statements
Commercial impact rather than consumer protection per se
False origin claims (“Made in…”, organic, halal, eco-labels) are particularly scrutinized.
VI. Burden of Proof and Technical Evidence
Case Law 5: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_636/2018
Holding
In technical labeling disputes:
The claimant must prove non-compliance
Once prima facie evidence is shown, the burden shifts to the supplier
Labeling Context
Expert evidence on regulatory labeling standards is decisive
Ambiguities in labeling are construed against the drafting party
Swiss tribunals frequently apply contra proferentem in label-drafting disputes.
VII. Damages and Foreseeability
Case Law 6: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, ATF 133 III 462
Key Principle
Only foreseeable and adequately caused damages are recoverable.
Labeling-Related Damages Recognized
Relabeling costs
Market withdrawal expenses
Lost resale contracts
Storage and destruction costs
Reputational damage is compensable only if:
Directly linked to labeling failure
Quantified with reasonable certainty
VIII. International Labeling Requirements
Case Law 7: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_70/2015
Holding
When goods are contractually intended for foreign markets:
Compliance with destination-country labeling law is implied
Supplier cannot rely on compliance with Swiss standards alone
Significance
Swiss tribunals impose export-market awareness obligations, especially in:
Food and beverage
Cosmetics
Medical devices
IX. Enforcement and Public Policy Review
Swiss courts will refuse enforcement only if an award:
Authorizes misleading labeling
Undermines mandatory consumer protection
However:
Awards allocating damages for labeling breaches are routinely enforced
No violation of Swiss ordre public arises from compensating labeling-related losses
X. Doctrinal Takeaways
Labeling disputes are fully arbitrable in Switzerland
Lawful marketability is an implied contractual obligation
Regulatory findings are persuasive but not determinative
Mislabeling can constitute both non-conformity and misrepresentation
Burden of proof shifts after prima facie non-compliance
Damages focus on foreseeability and causation
RELATED Blog
comments