RBU decision annulled – Federal court decides: ‘Kassensturz’ properly informed – News



[ad_1]


content

The contribution of «Kassensturz» «Politicians who deceive consumers: kneel in front of the insurance lobby» does not violate the principle of fairness. The Federal Supreme Court approved SRG’s complaint and reversed UBI’s decision.

“Kassensturz ۚ” critically accompanied the revision of the VVG Insurance Contract Law and reported on it several times. With a clear focus: How did a major and balanced reform become a consumer-hostile bill, criticized by renowned legal experts? For his research, the editor in charge analyzed all consultation articles, questioned all MPs and criticized the role of the insurance association SIA.

Opinion formation was possible

The SIA complained, among other things, that the contribution was one-sided and contained incorrect information. The Independent Radio and Television Claims Authority (UBI) agreed with the SIA on essential points.

The Federal Supreme Court does not support UBI’s decision. The contribution is not convincing in all respects. However, this is not enough to justify the RBU’s intervention. The Federal Supreme Court stated in its ruling: The report was appropriate. In other words, “Kassensturz” reported in such a way that viewers could form their own opinion.

For consumers

For publishers, this trial is an important confirmation of their role as consumer advocates. “Kassensturz” sees the verdict as confirmation of taking a clear and direct position in favor of the consumer if he reports fairly and adequately in general. This control function is particularly important in the complex issue of insurance contracts, where insurance companies have a knowledge advantage over their clients.

From the editors’ point of view, the verdict is also a confirmation of journalistic freedom when it comes to an issue. In this case, that means: “Kassensturz” measured political actors for their statements and correctly reported their attitudes. The editorial team takes the Federal Supreme Court’s criticism of the article seriously and will continue to report appropriately and fairly in the future.

[ad_2]