A clean research and careful reporting pay off, also legally. This proof is provided by the 'Beobachter', which recently reported on the successful conclusion of a long-standing court proceeding against it
Background: At the end of 2020, an elaborate investigation into the dubious practices of the insurance broker Swiss Home Finance AG appeared in the magazine. The Swiss Home Finance AG fought back against this. The founder and managing director of the company placed full-page advertisements in several Swiss media outlets and accused the "Beobachter" of damaging his business (see image). In addition, the Swiss Home Finance AG filed a lawsuit against the "Beobachter" at the Zurich Commercial Court, with significant media coverage and considerable expense (they claimed legal costs of CHF 155,294.75) for alleged violations of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) and personality rights. The insurance broker was particularly disturbed by the statement that employees were tracing signatures on insurance documents.
With judgment of May 31, 2024, the Commercial Court of Zurich dismissed the lawsuit of Swiss Home Finance AG in its entirety. In the court's opinion, the "Beobachter" succeeded in proving the truth (Art. 28 Para. 2 ZGB) of its statements. The "Beobachter" had submitted a corresponding video recording from the Zurich office of Swiss Home Finance AG, which showed persons tracing a signature at the window (E. 4.3.2.):
Based on this evidence and the resulting circumstances, the defendant succeeds in providing the main proof that signatures of customers are being retraced in the plaintiff's office. […] Based on this evidence, the court is already convinced of the correctness of the factual assertions contained in the article in question (tracing signatures, signing oneself).
The 'Beobachter' presented various other evidence in the proceedings in addition to the video recording. In these documents, there was also mention of eraser-ballpoint pens that were used to fill out insurance applications. The Commercial Court writes about this (E. 4.3.2.):
The use of eraser-ballpoint pens when filling out insurance applications does not per se prove any of the alleged actions, but in view of the allegations at hand, it does not cast a good light on the plaintiff, especially since this had apparently been criticized by the insurance company earlier - for whatever reasons. Moreover, it is absolutely unusual in a business context to use such writing instruments, especially when it comes to important documents where the appearance of falsification or cover-up must not arise.
Of particular interest to media professionals are the commercial court's comments on the anonymous sources of the «Beobachter». For its research, as well as in the court proceedings, it also relied on statements from several employees of Swiss Home Finance, who had confirmed the practices. To protect them, the statements of the sources were submitted in writing in the proceedings, but in anonymised form. The witnesses, however, were willing to appear in person before a notary and have their signatures authenticated. The Commercial Court ruled as follows (para. 4.3.2.):
There are also various documents on record which substantiate the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's employees traced or forged signatures on insurance applications. The probative value of the written statements from the defendant's anonymous sources (act. 11/1-3; additionally notarized: act. 32/2-3) is weaker, however. Written statements from anonymous sources are considered mere documents, as only the court can obtain written testimony from witnesses pursuant to Art. 190 para. 2 CPC. The potential circumstance that the witnesses wished to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliatory measures by the plaintiff or [...] does not increase the probative value of the written records, as the parties cannot unilaterally take protective measures (cf. Art. 156 CPC). Nevertheless, the consistent statements from the anonymous sources regarding the tracing or forging of signatures support the defendant's position.
The court therefore came to the conclusion (E. 4.4.):
Neither the individual passages or allegations objected to by the plaintiff nor the article in dispute as a whole violate the plaintiff's personality rights in an unlawful manner.
With regard to alleged violations of the Federal Act against Unfair Competition, the Commercial Court held (E. 5.2.):
The article in dispute does not contain any unnecessarily offensive, aggressive or malicious, or even misleading statement within the meaning of Art. 3 Para. 1 lit. a UWG, so it remains open whether the other characteristics of the offence would be met. The accusation of unnecessary disparagement therefore also proves to be unfounded, and a violation of the UWG is to be denied.
The Swiss Home Finance appealed against the findings of the Commercial Court to the Federal Supreme Court. The latter recently also ruled in favor of the "Beobachter". It rejected the complaint of the insurance intermediary in its entirety. In the judgment 5A_519/2024 of July 4, 2025, the Federal Supreme Court explains in detail why the complaint of Swiss Home Finance is unfounded (E. 4.2.3.):
The complaints regarding the considerations with which the lower court explains why the accusation of tracing or tracing signatures raised in the article in dispute violates her personality are doomed to fail. After the lower court has affirmed a violation of personality, the complainant could only have a legitimate interest in the examination of these objections within the meaning of Art. 76 BGG if the (allegedly) incorrect reasoning affects the outcome of the dispute. The complainant claims that this is the case. To justify this, she relies on the fact that the Commercial Court obviously incorrectly establishes the facts and that its considerations contradict the result of the evidence. These complaints miss the point. Whether the disputed passages of the media report, in the perception of an average reader, amount to a (criminal) pre-conviction of the complainant, which conflicts with the presumption of innocence and the guidelines for suspicion reporting, is not a question of establishing the facts or weighing the evidence, but a legal question (see above E. 4.1.3). To what extent the lower court, in exercising its discretion in this regard, exposes itself to the accusation of incorrect application of the law, is not shown by the complainant. Further discussion is unnecessary.
With regard to the proof of the fact that signatures were traced in the office of the appellant, the Federal Supreme Court concludes (para. 4.2.5.):
In view of the above, the lower court's finding that the respondent has provided proof of the allegation of tracing or tracing signatures made in the article in dispute must stand. This renders unnecessary any discussion of the appellant's further allegation that the Commercial Court negates the 'legal truism' that there can only be a public interest in the dissemination of true information. The appellant does not cite any special reasons why the publication of the said fact, now established as true, should exceptionally not be covered by the media's mandate to inform (cf. above para. 4.1.2).
This jurisprudence is an important victory for investigative journalism. Anyone who takes journalistic due diligence seriously and documents their research well can successfully invoke the protection of media freedom in court – despite source protection.
More information:
Reporting by the «Beobachter» on the outcome of the proceedings
Ringier media release of October 8, 2025
Disclaimer: The Beobachter was represented in the proceedings by attorney Markus Prazeller, partner at Wagner Prazeller Hug.
