The basis of the legislative framework for antitrust litigation is the Federal Act on the Amendment of the Swiss Civil Code of 30 March 1911 (the “Swiss Code of Obligations”; CO) and the Swiss Civil Procedure Code of 19 December 2008 (the “Civil Procedure Code”; CPC).

These two laws are complemented by certain provisions in the Federal Act on Cartels and other Restraints of Competition of 6 October 1995 (the “Cartel Act”; CartA). The Cartel Act defines the available relief as well as the suspension of the limitation period if the Competition Commission (COMCO) opens a formal investigation (as of 2027 onwards), and provides that civil courts have to refer the antitrust assessment of a case to COMCO for a non-binding expert report.

So far, civil antitrust litigation has been of minor significance in Switzerland for various reasons. The standard of proof (full conviction of the court) is high, as are the requirements to substantiate factual allegations. The cost risks are significantly higher compared to filing a complaint at COMCO. COMCO provides a cheap avenue to a full investigation of a case.

Most of the antitrust litigation to date has concerned litigation of car service dealers of selective distribution networks whose contracts were terminated. The terminated service dealers requested the conclusion of new contracts in court by way of interim relief. All but one of these requests were rejected by the courts, mostly for procedural reasons (lack of jurisdiction due to an agreement on the place of jurisdiction, lack of urgency, lack of a prima facie case, etc). Only one court (the Cantonal Court of Lucerne) concluded on a preliminary basis that the terminated dealer may have a claim to being awarded a new dealer contract.

Another notable ongoing litigation is the CHF142 million claim of 35 merchants (including grocery chains, tour operators, airline carriers) against Visa and MasterCard for damages arising out of allegedly unlawfully charged interchange fees.

In 2025 the Swiss Parliament introduced the following changes to the Cartel Act:

• customers also have standing (not just corporations);
• the available relief also includes the declaration of unlawfulness of a restriction of competition; and
• the limitation period of claims for damages, satisfaction or profits does not start or is suspended when COMCO opens a formal investigation into the conduct in question, until COMCO’s decision has become final.

These changes will enter into force in 2027 (presumably in July 2027).

Any person whose economic interests are threatened or harmed by an unlawful restriction of competition is entitled to the following relief:

• removal of or desistance from the restriction of competition;
• damages based on the Code of Obligations;
• satisfaction based on the Code of Obligations;
• surrender of unlawfully earned profits based on the Code of Obligations’ provisions on agency without authority; and
• the declaration that the restriction of competition is unlawful.

Switzerland has 26 cantons. Each of these cantons has to designate a court that handles claims based on competition law. This is either the commercial court (in the cantons of Aargau, Berne, St Gallen and Zurich) or the upper civil court of that canton. However, these courts are not specialised in competition law.

As for claims that are not primarily based on competition law, the ordinary courts have jurisdiction.

Decisions of COMCO are not binding on the courts. The same applies to decisions of foreign national competition authorities (NCAs). While decisions of competition authorities have some authoritative value, the courts are free to assess the evidence differently and to take a different legal view.

COMCO has no direct role in the proceeding before the court. If, however, it is unclear whether a conduct is unlawful under the Cartel Act, the court refers the case to COMCO for an expert report. This expert report is based on the facts that the court presents to COMCO. COMCO does not conduct any fact finding, and the expert report is not binding on the court.

As regards the burden and standard of proof, the general principles of civil litigation apply. The party deriving rights from an alleged fact must prove its existence. There are generally no legal presumptions, in particular in relation to the amount of damages and the causal link between the restriction of competition and the damage. One exception is the presumption that price fixing, quota and market sharing agreements between competitors, as well as the restriction of passive sales of resellers and resale price maintenance, eliminate effective competition. However, this presumption can be rebutted in most cases.

NCA decisions have some probative value but are not binding. They may be helpful in establishing that there was an agreement, a restriction of competition or a dominant position of the defendant, but on the essential point – ie, the amount of damages – they are often silent, as an NCA typically does not have to prove any damage to show that there was a restriction of competition.

The standard of proof is generally full-proof – ie, the full conviction of the court. In relation to injunctive relief, the standard of proof is prima facie evidence.

The defendant can claim that the damages were passed on to the next level of trade. The defendant carries the burden of proof for the pass-on defence.

The right to claim damages or satisfaction based on tort law prescribes three years from the date on which the person suffering damage became aware of the loss, damage or injury and of the identity of the person liable for it, but in any event ten years after the date on which the harmful conduct took place or ceased. If the claim is based on contract law, it is prescribed as ten years.

If COMCO opens a formal investigation, the limitation period does not begin or is suspended from the initiation of COMCO’s investigation until COMCO’s decision has become final.

A private antitrust litigation can be expected to take between two and four years. Under the Civil Procedure Code, every canton designates a single instance for antitrust disputes. Any decision from such single instance can only be appealed to the Swiss Supreme Court. The Swiss Supreme Court’s review is then limited to legal reasoning of the previous instance; it reviews the factual grounds of the appealed decision only in exceptional circumstances.

The bulk of the time will be taken up at the first instance, whereas proceedings before the Swiss Supreme Court are typically swift, given that the statutory appeal period is only 30 days and the court, after having received the appeal, hardly ever grants longer periods for subsequent submissions and rarely allows more than two rounds of submissions.

Preliminary injunctions can be obtained very fast. In particularly urgent cases, Swiss courts may even grant measures ex parte. If such measures are appealed, this can prolong the proceedings, but usually injunction proceedings are fully concluded between six and ten months.

Swiss civil procedure does not provide for class or collective actions. A proposal to introduce a collective redress has not been further pursued by the Swiss Parliament. Claimants that want to claim damages collectively have to use individual assignment of claims or bring a lawsuit as joint plaintiffs.

See 4.1 Statutory Basis.

See 4.1 Statutory Basis.

See 4.1 Statutory Basis.

As regards jurisdiction, the general principles of civil litigation apply. In the absence of an agreement on the place of jurisdiction, for actions arising from tort, the court with jurisdiction is the court at the place of the seat of the injured party or at the place where the conduct or the damage occurred.

In national cases, the applicable law is Swiss law. In international cases, the applicable law is the law of the state in which the conduct directly affected the claimant.

There is no discovery in Swiss civil procedure comparable to common law jurisdictions. It is not possible to merely request production of documents that could be relevant to the dispute. That said, litigants may request the court to order the counterparty to produce documents. However, these documents have to be specifically and clearly identified by the requesting party. Courts also apply a high standard to the relevancy of documents requested to be produced by the counterparty.

There is a legal privilege for correspondence with external counsel. However, the legal privilege does not extend to pre-existing documents – ie, documents that existed prior to the instruction of the external counsel.

There is also a legal privilege for correspondence with in-house counsel in civil litigations, if:

• the respective company is registered in the Swiss or a comparable foreign commercial register;
• its legal department is led by a lawyer admitted to practise as a lawyer in Switzerland or their country of origin; and
• the activity in question would be considered specific to the profession of an attorney.

Swiss civil procedure as such does not protect leniency statements and settlement agreements from disclosure. COMCO has put in place safeguards to prevent the disclosure and use of leniency statements and settlement agreements in follow-on antitrust litigation. However, these safeguards are largely untested in the context of civil antitrust litigation.

COMCO will generally reject requests by third parties to produce leniency statements and the related pre-existing documents. The same is true for documents related to the negotiation of a settlement agreement (though not the settlement agreement itself). In the COMCO investigation itself, other parties of the COMCO investigation will only get access to leniency statements and material in relation to settlement agreements under the condition that they use them solely for the purpose of defending themselves in the COMCO investigation.

The parties can request the court to hear witnesses. If the court approves this request, witnesses are generally questioned orally by the court. Parties may request the court to ask additional questions. Under certain conditions, the interrogation of the witnesses may also take place via videoconference.

There are two types of expert witnesses:

• expert witnesses appointed by the court; and
• expert witnesses hired by the parties.

Expert witnesses appointed by the court are appointed either ex officio or upon request of the parties. They have to be independent, which is why the same grounds for recusal apply to an expert witness as to court officials.

Expert witnesses hired by the parties have the same evidentiary value as allegations of the parties themselves.

Damages are assessed by using the difference theory. The difference theory compares the current status with the hypothetical status that would have occurred if there had not been an antitrust infringement. The damage can include effective losses but also foregone profits.

The injured party has to prove the amount of the damage. Courts generally impose high requirements on the substantiation and proof of damages Where the exact value of the damage cannot be quantified, the court can estimate the value at its discretion in the light of the normal course of events and the steps taken by the party suffering the damage. The passing-on defence is available and has to be proven by the party infringing the antitrust law.

Punitive damages are not available under Swiss law. The statutory default interest rate is 5% per annum.

If the claim is based on tort law, the liability is joint and several. The liability of immunity applicants is not limited. Consequently, if several parties participated in the infringement, the party suffering the damage can sue one of the infringers for the entire damage suffered. The respective party may then claim contributions against the other parties for the amount paid exceeding its proportional share. Generally, each infringer is liable for an equal share unless otherwise agreed or indicated by the nature of the relationship.

There is the possibility of claiming contributions from other parties – see 9.1 Joint and Several Liability.

Injunctive relief is available if the claimant demonstrates a prima facie case meeting all of the following requirements:

• the claimant has a claim that is infringed or threatened;
• there is a risk of irreparable harm if the injunctive relief is not granted;
• the need for relief is urgent; and
• the requested relief is appropriate, necessary and proportionate.

In antitrust litigation, injunctive relief typically entails the order to supply the claimant with the goods or services in question. The award of payments is typically not obtainable due to the lack of irreparable harm.

In cases of exceptional urgency – for example, where there is a risk of the claim being thwarted – the court can order the injunctive relief immediately and without hearing the respondent (so-called super-provisional measure). If a super-provisional measure is granted, the court gives the respondent an opportunity to submit a written response. It then renders its decision on injunctive relief. A super-provisional measure can be obtained within days or even hours.

Generally, the parties must conduct a conciliation proceeding before filing a lawsuit.

Third-party funding is permissible if the funder acts independently of the party’s attorney. However, third-party funding is not yet widely used in Switzerland; one of the reasons for this is the lack of collective redress in Swiss civil procedure.

There are two types of costs:

• court costs; and
• fees of the opposing party’s attorney.

The court costs are typically determined in relation to the value of the dispute. The court costs have to be borne by the losing party. If a party loses only in part, the court costs are divided proportionally. The court requires the plaintiff to advance the estimated court costs (generally up to half the amount; in exceptional cases, the entire estimated court costs).

As regards the fees of the opposing party’s attorney, the losing party has to pay these. However, the court determines the amount based not on the actual fees of the attorney but on criteria that differ in each canton (value of dispute, complexity, appropriate efforts, etc). The fees awarded to the winning party generally do not cover the fees of the attorney.

Decisions of the courts designated to decide on antitrust litigation can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. The appeal is generally only on points of law. The factual grounds of the appealed decision are reviewed only in exceptional circumstances.

See 1.2 Recent Developments regarding changes to the Cartel Act (expected in July 2027). These changes were made with a view towards strengthening civil antitrust litigation in Switzerland. However, these changes may be expected to not fundamentally change the antitrust litigation landscape. A true true game-changer would be the adoption of a collective action regime or of a consumer protection organisation outside assigned claims.