Product Liability & Safety 2026 Comparisons

The Swiss product safety legal framework consists of regulations that fall into two broad categories: sector-specific and horizontal framing regulations.

Sector-Specific Federal Regulations

These regulations apply to specific product categories and include, for instance, the following.

• The Federal Act on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles and implementing ordinances, such as:
1. the Ordinance on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles;
2. the Federal Department of Home Affairs’ Ordinance on the Safety of Toys; or
3. the Federal Department of Home Affairs’ Ordinance on Cosmetic Products.
• The Federal Act on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices and implementing ordinances, such as the  Medical Devices Ordinance.
• The Ordinance on Machines.
• The Federal Act on Electrical Light and Heavy Current Installations and implementing ordinances, such as:
1. the Ordinance on Electrical Low Current Installations; or
2. the Ordinance on Electromagnetic Compatibility.
• The Federal Act on Construction Products.

Horizontal Framing Regulations

These are subsidiary, applicable and cross-sectoral to all products, and include the following.

• The Federal Product Safety Act and the implementing Ordinance on Product Safety – these regulations are applicable to the extent that a sector-specific regulation does not address product safety (eg, regarding post-market surveillance or competencies of the enforcement authorities).
• The Federal Act on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Ordinance on the Placing of Products on the Market according to Foreign Regulations – these regulations shall ensure free trade between Switzerland and its main trading partners by obliging the Swiss legislators to align product regulations with those of such partners, in particular with the European Union.
• The Federal Act on Product Liability, which provides for the strict liability (ie, not depending on the producer’s fault) of a producer for its defective products.

The enforcement of product safety regulation in Switzerland is generally sector specific. This means that the enforcement authorities that are responsible for a specific product sector are also authorised to enforce the specific product safety regulations for that sector. Depending on the sectoral law, the responsibility for enforcement lies with either the cantons or the federal government. The main regulators are the following.

• The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) co-ordinates the enforcement of Swiss product safety legislation in agreement with the competent sector-specific enforcement bodies and is, additionally, the surveying regulatory enforcement authority in several product sectors; the SECO also operates a product safety reporting and information centre together with the Federal Consumer Affairs Bureau (FCAB).
• The Federal Inspectorate for Heavy Current Installations (ESTI) is responsible for the technical supervision and inspection of electrical installations and electronic devices.
• The Swiss Council for Accident Prevention (BFU) is competent for personal protective equipment, specifically with regard to traffic, sport and household needs, and for machines, though with regard to recreational use only.
• The Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (SUVA) is the competent enforcement body for personal protective equipment and machines, with regard to operational use.
• The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic) is responsible for the market surveillance of therapeutic products and medical devices.
• The respective cantonal bodies – eg, cantonal inspectorates/laboratories – are generally competent to enforce the Swiss Foodstuffs and Utility Articles legislation (including with regard to toys, cosmetic products or food contact materials).
• The respective cantonal bodies – eg, cantonal inspectorates/laboratories – are generally competent to enforce Swiss chemical legislation.

Generally, for consumer products (ie, products that are intended for consumers or likely to be used by consumers under reasonably foreseeable conditions), the Swiss Product Safety Act obliges the producer or any other distributor to take adequate measures (ie, corrective actions) in the course of its business to prevent potential dangers arising from those products.

A corrective action is deemed “adequate” if the disadvantages that arise for the producer or other distributor are not considered completely disproportionate in comparison with the advantages resulting for the affected consumers. Potential measures include the issuing of warnings, a sales stop, the withdrawal from the market or the recall of the product. The law does not provide for any fixed formal requirements. Therefore, any corrective action may be chosen if it ultimately serves to avert the danger posed by the product. In practice, the competent enforcement bodies regularly require a producer/importer to issue a warning throughout the supply chain as well as to consumers (provided that the product has already reached consumers). Depending on the actual safety risk, the enforcement body may also require that the warning is made public, eg, on the producer’s website and/or on the website of the Swiss Federal Consumer Affairs Bureau. (For information on the role of the Bureau, please refer to 1.2 Regulatory Authorities for Product Safety.)

Switzerland follows a risk-based approach regarding the obligation to notify the regulatory authorities. Generally, the duty to notify the authorities in respect of a product safety issue is triggered – for consumer products – if a producer or any other person placing a product on the market knows or ought to know that the product in question presents a risk to the safety or health of users or third parties (Article 8, paragraph 5, Swiss Product Safety Act). The respective provision in the Product Safety Act aligns with the producer’s or other distributor’s obligation to notify the authority, as previously stipulated in Article 5, paragraph 3 of the EU General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC). However, Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on General Product Safety, which replaced the former EU General Product Safety Directive as of 13 December 2024, introduces the new wording “considers or has reason to believe” (Article 9, paragraph 8; Article 11, paragraph 8; and Article 12, paragraph 4). It remains to be seen whether the planned revision of the Swiss Product Safety Act will align its wording with this new threshold of knowledge in accordance with the the Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on General Product Safety. The notification obligation of the Product Safety Act applies where the specific sectoral law does not provide for any separate notification obligation.

The notification must be made immediately. According to an FAQ guide published by the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), “immediately” means no later than one to two days, depending on the associated safety risk. Swiss legal scholars advocate for a longer period of up to ten days in line with the former European Commission’s Guidelines for the Notification of Dangerous Consumer Products to the Competent Authorities of the Member States by Producers and Distributors, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 3 of the EU General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC). It remains to be seen whether the planned revision of the Swiss Product Safety Act will introduce a more precise timeline for notifications. In connection with the recent cereulide contamination in infant formula, the relevant authorities, following the initial recall, immediately requested the necessary documentation from the companies to verify whether they had complied with legal requirements for precautionary health protection and responded in a timely manner. Consequently, the timeliness of the notification is the subject of an ongoing investigation.

The Swiss Product Safety Act defines the minimum content of the notification. There are no legal requirements as to the form of the notification. However, some regulatory bodies provide for voluntary notification templates on their websites but emphasise that the completion of the form should not delay the notification.

Generally, any person who fails to notify the authorities in a timely manner of a dangerous or potentially dangerous consumer product, as required under Article 8, paragraph 5 of the Swiss Product Safety Act, or who breaches the duty to collaborate with the enforcement authorities (Article 11, Swiss Product Safety Act) is liable for a fine of up to CHF40,000 (in the case of wilfulness) or CHF20,000 (in the case of negligence). Further, any person who intentionally places a product on the market that does not meet the requirements of Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Swiss Product Safety Act (general safety requirements) and thereby endangers the safety or health of users or third parties shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding one year or to a monetary penalty (if the offender acts on a commercial basis, a custodial sentence up to three years or a monetary penalty). Further sanctions may apply in cases of negligence, false certifications, the unauthorised issuance of declarations of conformity or the use of labelling or warning and safety instructions that do not correspond to the specific hazard potential of a product. Sectoral law, however, sometimes provides for different criminal liability. In any case, the law sets forth that the person within the producer’s organisation who is responsible for the offence should be punished. The principal is only punished if they wilfully or negligently, in breach of a legal obligation, failed to prevent the offence.

There are no publicly available examples of companies being prosecuted or fined for breaching these obligations. However, that does not mean that no such cases exist. Under Swiss criminal prosecution law, the courts may generally only publish a judgment if the publication is in the public’s interest or in the interest of the injured party.

Depending on the respondent of the action (eg, a producer, distributor or retailer), an injured party would likely base its claim for damages on the following grounds.

Against the Producer

The Federal Product Liability Act provides for the non-contractual strict liability (ie, not depending on fault) of a producer for damages if a defective product leads to the death or injury of a person or the damaging or destruction of property. “Producer” means the person who has manufactured the end product, a basic material or a partial product; and any person who claims to be the producer by affixing its name, trade mark or other distinctive sign to the product (“quasi-producer”) as well as any person importing the product for distribution purposes to Switzerland. The liability is only triggered if the product is deemed defective – ie, if it does not offer the safety that one may expect considering all the circumstances (such as the get-up or overall appearance of the product, the expected use or the time of market placement). The Federal Product Liability Act, however, provides for several defences (please refer to 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims for further details).

In addition, the injured party could base a damages claim on contract (if the producer is the seller and the injured party is the buyer) or general tort law. The latter, however, would require proof of fault. Given this obstacle, a claimant would generally invoke the respective tort claim only on a subsidiary basis.

Against the Seller

The Swiss Code of Obligations provides for the strict contractual liability of a seller for the direct damage suffered by a buyer due to a defective object purchased from that seller. “Direct damage” would also include any personal damage or damage to property which was directly caused (ie, without any additional causal link) by the product’s defect. If the seller were also the producer of the defective product, the injured buyer could alternatively base its claim for damages on the Federal Product Liability Act as discussed above.

In Switzerland, the standing to bring claims for product liability is – such as with any other claim – a matter of substantive law, ie, it depends on the legal basis of a claim. A party has standing to sue if it (at least allegedly) has a substantive claim under a certain law or legal relationship.

In the context of product liability, claims are usually based on either the Federal Product Liability Act, a contract or tort law (as discussed in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law).

Under the Federal Product Liability Act, any person injured by a defective product or any person suffering property damage due to a defective product may bring a claim against the responsible producer.

For contractual claims, a party to a contract usually has standing to sue if it suffers damage following a violation of the contract by the other party (in the context of product liability, eg, in case of the delivery of a defective product).

Under general tort law, any person who has suffered damage following a civil wrong committed by another person – whether or not the injured party is linked to that person by a legal relationship, such as a contract (eg, as is often the case in product liability matters between a consumer and a producer) – has standing to sue.

Which of these legal bases is the most favourable for an injured party to bring claims related to a product depends largely on the underlying facts of the case. Whenever there is a contractual relationship, an injured party will most probably bring claims under that contract given that, under Swiss law, there is a presumption of fault, ie, the burden of proof is on the breaching party causing damage, and in sales contracts there is even a strict liability without requirement of fault for direct damage. If there is no such contract – which is usually the case between an injured party and a producer – the injured party would generally try to sue a producer primarily under the Federal Product Liability Act because of its strict liability, whereas under tort law the producer can only be held liable in case of fault.

The applicable time limit depends on the legal basis that the respective claim is based on. For claims based on the Federal Product Liability Act, the statute of limitations is three years, starting from the date on which the injured person became or should have become aware of the damage, the defect of the product and the identity of the producer (Article 9 of the Federal Product Liability Act).

For claims based on contract law (in the context of product liability, most likely a sales contract), the statute of limitations is two years, starting from the day the defective product was delivered (Article 210, Swiss Code of Obligations).

For claims based on tort law, the Swiss Code of Obligations provides for two different statutes of limitations: a relative and an absolute one (Article 60, Swiss Code of Obligations). The relative limitation period is three years, starting from the date on which the injured person became aware of the damage and the person liable for it. The absolute limitation period is ten years for property damaged and 20 years for personal injury, starting from the date on which the damaging event occurred or ended. This longer limitation period for personal injury under tort law means that a producer may be held liable by an injured party, even if the limitation period for claims under the Federal Product Liability Act has expired. This absolute limitation period generally runs regardless of whether the injured person has any knowledge of the damage and even if the damage has not yet occurred. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently condemned Switzerland once again for its handling of limitation periods, in light of the lengthy latency period of asbestos-related diseases and the realistic opportunity for victims to recognise the damage. Therefore, it is unclear how a court would handle future cases in which damages only surface after the expiry of the limitation period.

The Swiss Civil Procedure Code determines the locally competent court for a dispute in domestic matters, whereas the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law or the Lugano Convention (applicable in civil and commercial matters involving parties from EU or European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states) establishes the territorial jurisdiction of a Swiss court in international, cross-border disputes.

The rules regarding the place of jurisdiction are largely comparable in both domestic and international cases. As a general rule, proceedings can be initiated in the competent court at the domicile or seat of the respondent (eg, at the seat of the liable producer). Depending on the area of private law concerned, a claimant may also initiate proceedings at another forum: eg, in product liability cases, a consumer would be entitled to bring a claim before the competent courts at the place where the act occurred or had its effect.

With regard to subject-matter jurisdiction, it can be said that all cantonal courts in Switzerland have jurisdiction in all areas of the law and apply both cantonal and federal law. There are no specific/specialised courts for product liability claims, which can therefore be brought before any locally competent court.

However, the Swiss Civil Procedure Code grants the cantons the option to establish specialised commercial courts, in which the panel of judges is mixed, ie, composed of regular judges and experts (so-called expert judges) in the economic sector relevant for the case. Four cantons – Zurich, Berne, Aargau and St Gallen – have established such a court, which is part of the cantonal supreme court and serves as a court of first instance for commercial matters. Such commercial courts have subject-matter jurisdiction if:

• a claim concerns the commercial activity of at least one of the parties to the dispute;
• the value in dispute exceeds CHF30,000 or the dispute is not a property dispute;
• the parties to the dispute are registered in the Swiss commercial register or a similar foreign registry; and
• the dispute does not arise from an employment relationship, the Recruitment Act, the Gender Equality Act, or relate to the renting or leasing of residential and commercial premises or to agricultural leases.

Where only the defendant is registered as a legal entity in the commercial register, a claimant can choose to initiate proceedings before either the commercial court or the locally competent ordinary court. If a producer has its registered seat in a canton with a commercial court, an injured party can thus choose to bring its product liability claim before either the commercial court or the ordinary court.

If a claiming party has the possibility to choose where to bring its claims, which court is the most favourable depends on the underlying facts and on the party’s perspective. Commercial courts have the advantage that experts from the relevant sectors are part of the judges’ panel, whereas judges of ordinary courts generally do not have expert knowledge in the specific product sector, but their decisions might be more consumer friendly. Another difference to take into consideration is that there is only one legal remedy against decisions rendered by a commercial court, whereas decisions of the ordinary courts can be appealed against twice (see 2.11 Appeal Mechanisms for Product Liability Claims).

Swiss procedural law provides for mandatory reconciliation proceedings. Before initiating the main proceedings, the claimant must submit a reconciliation request to the conciliation authority (the so-called justice of the peace), following which the authority will schedule a conciliation hearing. If no agreement can be reached, the conciliation authority will issue an authorisation to proceed (ie, to file a claim before a court), which is valid for three months. If a claim is filed before a court without a valid authorisation to proceed, the court will not decide on the merits but dismiss the case for procedural reasons.

Despite the mandatory nature of the reconciliation proceeding, the Civil Procedure Code provides for a few exceptions, some of which might be relevant in product liability cases. A claimant may unilaterally waive conciliation if the respondent’s registered domicile is outside Switzerland. The parties may mutually agree to waive reconciliation if the amount in dispute is at least CHF100,000. In addition, and irrespective of the amount in dispute, the parties may agree to replace the reconciliation procedure with mediation pursuant to Article 213 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code.

In addition, and as set out in 2.4 Jurisdictional Requirements for Product Liability Claims, certain cantons have established commercial courts. If a producer has its registered seat in one of these cantons, an injured party may choose to bring its product liability claim either before the commercial court or the ordinary court, as long as the criteria as set out in 2.4 Jurisdictional Requirements for Product Liability Claims are met. If a claimant decides to bring a claim before a commercial court, no reconciliation proceedings take place and the claim must be filed directly with the commercial court.

There are no specific rules, under Swiss product liability law or Swiss procedural law, obliging a producer or other distributor to preserve any evidence in product liability cases.

There are, as in many other jurisdictions, general evidentiary risks in not preserving evidence. In a product liability case, the claimant is generally required to prove that the defendant’s product is defective, and that the product defect is the cause of their injury or damage to property. Under Swiss product liability law, the defendant (producer or other distributor) has several defences (please refer to 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims for further discussion of these). In this light, a producer or other distributor is well advised to preserve documentation (eg, random samples, technical documentation, consumer feedback, etc) and product samples for every batch so that such evidence can be readily produced if necessary. Furthermore, under some sectoral laws, producers may be required to preserve the conformity declaration or technical documentation.

There are no specific rules on the taking of evidence in product liability cases, and the Swiss Civil Procedure Code does not provide for any pre-trial or discovery mechanisms. Pursuant to the general rules on the taking of evidence in civil procedure, each party must indicate the evidence it wants to rely on in its briefs. To the extent that such evidence is already in its possession, the party must file the evidence together with its briefs. For product liability cases, in particular this holds true for:

• product samples;
• documentary evidence (technical documentation, risk assessment, customer feedback, etc);
• expert opinions; and
• digital or other data.

Court-Ordered Evidence

To the extent that it is the responsibility of the court to order the taking of evidence, parties must submit respective requests together with precise descriptions of the evidence. In particular, this holds true for:

• opinions to be submitted by a court-appointed expert (indication of the questions to be presented);
• inspections to be executed by the court (indication of the subject); and
• witness testimony (indication of the witnesses) – under Swiss law, witnesses will be examined by the court and there are no cross-examinations.

If a party wants to rely on evidence in the possession of the opposing party or a third party (eg, a defective product, purchase receipt or medical reports), it has to precisely identify the evidence and request that the court order that the evidence be provided.

Preventative taking of evidence

If a potential claimant (ie, an injured person) has reason to believe that evidence is at risk, it may request the preventative taking of evidence by the court. This request can be filed at any time during the proceedings and even prior to the commencement of the proceedings.

The preventative taking of evidence is considered an interim measure. The request is usually granted if:

• a specific law or provision allows the preventative taking of evidence;
• the evidence is at risk (which is the case if the evidence may cease to exist or may alter before the ordinary evidentiary proceedings); or
• there is another interest worthy of protection.

In any case, the requesting party has to credibly demonstrate (but not prove) the grounds on which it bases its request. In the case of imminent harm, the request can be granted ex parte.

The court may seek an opinion from one or more experts at the request of a party or ex officio. However, the court will do so only if it considers an expert opinion necessary to prove relevant facts that are disputed by the parties. If such an opinion is sought, it is the court that appoints as well as instructs the experts and submits the relevant questions to them. Prior to this, the parties are given the opportunity to submit additional questions or to have the questions modified. The court can order that the experts submit their opinion in writing or present it orally (or via electronic means). It may also summon the experts to the hearing to present and explain their written opinion. In that case, the parties will be given the opportunity to ask for explanations or to put additional questions to the expert. However, cross-examination of the expert is not permitted.

Furthermore, the court may put questions to a witness with expert knowledge in order to assess the merits of the case. The expert witness must have special expertise in the subject so that the court can examine the expert witness not only with regard to the merits, but also on its assessment thereof. However, an expert witness cannot replace an expert opinion. In contrast to an expert, the expert witness is not subject to an appointment procedure. Lastly, an expert witness is liable to prosecution only for giving false testimony and not for giving a false expert opinion.

Parties are free to individually commission an expert opinion and to submit it in the proceedings. As opposed to an expert opinion that was produced by a court-appointed expert, the party expert opinion is not considered to be evidence but will only qualify as a party allegation.

As a general rule under Swiss civil law, it is incumbent upon the party who wants to rely on a certain fact to establish and prove this fact. For product liability cases, this means that it is generally the injured person who bears the burden of proof for all facts underlying its claim.

This holds true for all claims (and the respective requirements) based on tort law and on the Federal Product Liability Act. For claims based on a contract there is one deviation from this rule: the burden of proof for fault is reversed. This means that, if all other requirements are met, it is assumed that the defendant was at fault and it will be upon the defendant (ie, the producer) to prove that this was not the case. From a procedural perspective, it may thus be favourable for an injured person to bring a claim based on contract rather than tort law. For claims based on a sales contract, provided that a direct nexus between the damage and the defect of the product can be established, fault is not a requirement at all. The same holds true for claims based on the Federal Product Liability Act, which provides for strict liability.

The Federal Product Liability Act provides, however, for several exceptions to this strict liability (see 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims). In accordance with the general rule set out above, it is the producer who bears the burden of proof for any fact it wants to rely on in order to exonerate itself from liability.

As to the relevant standard of proof: the general threshold is full proof, meaning that the court has to be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt. Where this is not possible (eg, because the defective product has been destroyed or disposed of or the amount of damage suffered cannot reasonably be quantified), the courts may apply a less strict standard.

There are no specific or specialised courts for product liability cases in Switzerland. Therefore, such cases generally must be brought before ordinary courts (ie, the competent local court) or – in certain cantons and if the statutory prerequisites are fulfilled (see 2.4 Jurisdictional Requirements for Product Liability Claims) – before the competent commercial court.

Depending on the value in dispute, the proceeding is held in a simplified proceeding (for claims not exceeding CHF30,000) or in an ordinary proceeding (for claims above CHF30,000 or claims without monetary value).

In Switzerland, cases are decided by judges and the exact composition of a bench depends on local, cantonal law. In simplified proceedings, the court is, however, often composed of a single judge (Einzelrichter), whereas there are usually three or more judges (Kollegialgericht) on the panel in ordinary proceedings.

There is usually no minimum threshold with regard to the damages that can be claimed. If claims are brought under the Swiss Product Liability Act, however, the claimant must bear a deductible of CHF900 in the case of damage to property.

There is no maximum cap on the damages that can be awarded to a claimant. However, a claimant can only be compensated for the damages it actually suffered. In other words, Swiss courts do not award so-called punitive damages that exceed the amount of the actual loss. Swiss law does not allow a damaged party to take monetary advantage (enrichment) from the event of damage. Accordingly, the claimant must prove each individual damaged position (exact amount) and the causal link between the damaging event (in product liability cases, the defective product) and the respective position.

There are no specific rules governing the appeal mechanisms in product liability cases. The general procedural rules provide essentially for two appeal opportunities which are relevant for product liability cases: an initial appeal to the high court of the respective canton, followed by a further appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Appeal to the High Court of the Respective Canton

Final and interim decisions and decisions on interim measures of a court of first instance can be appealed if the amount in dispute is at least CHF10,000. The time limit for the filing of an appeal is 30 days in ordinary proceedings and ten days in summary proceedings. The appellant may submit that the first-instance court has (i) applied the law incorrectly, and/or (ii) established the facts incorrectly. The conduct of the proceeding is, to a large extent, at the discretion of the appeal instance: ie, the court of second instance will decide whether to conduct a second round of written submissions or to hold an oral hearing. The appeal instance may conclude the proceedings either by confirming the challenged decision, by rendering a new decision or by remitting the case to the court of first instance.

Appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court

The decision of the court of second instance may be appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court if the amount in dispute is at least CHF30,000 or if a question of fundamental interest is to be decided. The time limit for filing the appeal is 30 days. The appellant may essentially claim that the previous instance has (i) violated federal law, and/or (ii) established the facts manifestly wrongly or in violation of the federal law, provided that such deficiency was relevant to the outcome of the case. The procedure will be conducted in writing and will usually be limited to two written submissions. As in the previous instance, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court may confirm the challenged decision, render a new decision or remit the case to the previous instance.

Exception: Decisions of the Commercial Courts

There is only one legal remedy against a decision rendered by a commercial court, which is an appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. The procedure follows the same rules as described above.

The Federal Product Liability Act provides for the strict liability of a producer. The producer is, however, not liable under the Federal Product Liability Act if it can prove that:

• it has not placed the product on the market;
• there was no defect when the product was put into circulation;
• it did not manufacture the product for sale, or any other form of distribution with an economic purpose, or manufacture or distribute the product in the course of its professional activity;
• the defect is due to the fact that the product complies with binding regulations issued by public authorities; or
• the defect could not have been detected according to the state of scientific and technological knowledge at the time the product was put into circulation.

Furthermore, the producer of a raw material or part product is not liable under the Act if it can prove that the product defect is due to the construction of the product or the instructions of the producer of the end product.

A producer’s failure to meet the regulatory requirements is considered a breach of the product user’s justified safety expectations and can be decisive in determining of the defectiveness of the product. Swiss courts, however, have repeatedly found that adherence to regulatory requirements is the minimum standard only when determining the justified safety expectations. The producer must assess, in each individual case, whether its product meets the user’s safety expectations and may not rely on adherence to regulatory requirements or the conformity assessments of regulatory bodies.

With the enactment of partial revision of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code on 1 January 2025, the court or the conciliation authority may demand that the claiming party makes an advance payment not exceeding one half of the expected court costs to initiate court proceedings. Prior to the revision, the advance payment could amount to the total of the expected court costs. For certain proceedings, eg, summary proceedings, advance payment of the total estimated court costs may be requested. The payment of the advance is a procedural requirement for bringing an action, meaning that if no payment is made the case will be declared inadmissible. This can be a significant hurdle for claiming parties in general, and in particular in product liability cases involving consumers, given that the amounts to be advanced are calculated based on the amount in dispute and are typically relatively large. It remains to be seen whether halving the potential court costs resulting from the revision will actually facilitate access to justice.

The claiming party may be reimbursed for the advance payment if it wins the case as, in Switzerland, the “loser pays” principle applies. Accordingly, the costs follow the event, which means that the losing party must bear the court costs and, on top of that, must compensate the successful party for its legal costs. Court costs are determined and allocated by the court ex officio, while party costs are awarded upon request. Advance payments paid by the successful party will be directly refunded from the court.

The compensation for legal costs is determined in accordance with a tariff that is primarily based on the amount in dispute. The tariffs vary between cantons, but in the majority of cases the compensation granted does not cover the real legal costs incurred by a party; depending on the amount at stake, the amount payable as compensation for legal fees can be higher or lower than the actual costs incurred.

If no party succeeds entirely, the costs are allocated in accordance with the outcome of the case and unnecessary costs are charged to the party that caused them, independently of whether it was the losing party.

Third-Party Funding

Third-party funding is permitted in Switzerland and does exist, although it is not very common. In principle, there are no restrictions on third-party funding, as long as the funded party is still in control of the claim. If the funded party is represented by legal counsel, it is important to avoid any set-up that might impair the counsel’s ability to act independently and to pursue only their client’s interests. Otherwise, such a set-up might interfere with the counsel’s obligations pursuant to the rules of professional conduct.

Contingency Fee Agreements

“No win, no fee” and contingency fee agreements are not permitted under Swiss law since they are considered to stand in contradiction to the counsel’s obligations to act independently. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, the attorney’s rules of professional conduct require a base salary, which does not only cover the attorney’s costs but must also guarantee a certain profit. Only if this precondition is met may the parties agree on an additional success fee element in the sense of a top-up fee.

Legal Aid

Legal aid is available (mostly) for private individuals under the preconditions that (i) the requesting party does not have the funds to finance the proceedings, and (ii) the case is not devoid of any chance of success. The request must be placed with the same court that is also deciding on the merits. The court will decide on the request in a formal, preliminary proceeding, during which the requesting party must fully disclose its financial situation and state its position on the merits. If legal aid is granted, the applicant is relieved from the obligation to pay any court costs (including any advance on costs) and the state will cover any reasonable lawyer’s fees. However, legal aid does not relieve the applicant from the obligation to pay party compensation to the opposing party in the case of defeat.

Legal Protection Insurance

Since the threshold for receiving legal aid is high and the costs for initiating proceedings are considerable, legal protection insurance is becoming increasingly common among consumers. Even standard insurance packages include a legal protection policy. While the conditions of such policies vary significantly and most insurance policies tend to avoid litigation and to settle potential disputes, it is, however, difficult to quantify the impact of legal protection insurance on product liability claims.

There are no real collective redress procedures in Switzerland. However, it is possible to jointly bring several claims (eg, by a number of claimants filing their claims together when there are similar facts and legal grounds) in one proceeding or by way of an assignment of the individual claims to a claimant party. However, since this is usually cumbersome, it is rarely used.

When the general revision of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code was launched in 2018, it included proposals to introduce collective redress mechanisms, but these were later spun off into a separate legislative project due to political controversy. The bill, which aimed at improving access to justice for groups of affected individuals, particularly in consumer and environmental matters, was met with strong resistance on the grounds that it was incompatible with the Swiss legal system and risked its “Americanisation”. The bill was ultimately rejected by the Swiss Parliament in September 2025.

There are not many published decisions concerning product liability in Switzerland as most cases are resolved through settlement. However, the following cases are noteworthy.

In its landmark decision 4A_648/2024 of 30 January 2026, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that claims for damages based on tort (and supported by product liability law) brought by a child for prenatal injury caused by a medication are barred by the statute of limitations. The absolute statute of limitations of (at that time) ten years begins with birth and had therefore expired in 2011 in this specific case. An extension of the statute of limitations based on criminal law provisions or the case law of the European Court of Human Rights was rejected, as the parents and the child had been informed of the risks and the harm at an early stage and had had sufficient time to assert their claims. The court further clarified that prenatal injuries do not constitute grievous bodily harm under criminal law as long as the injured party has not yet been born and is therefore not a person in the criminal law sense. Civil procedural remedies could have been used to interrupt the statute of limitations. The court rejected an exception based on the gradual development of the harm or in light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 22 April 2024, the Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling on jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention in a product liability case involving a bicycle accident in Italy. The Swiss-based plaintiff, who had designed a defective bicycle, sought a negative declaratory judgment in Switzerland to establish that no liability existed, after the defendant had brought a claim in Italy. The court ruled that the dispute qualified as a tortious action under Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Lugano Convention. Although the bicycle was assembled and manufactured in China and the Netherlands, the court considered the design work carried out in Switzerland as the relevant harmful act. Therefore, Swiss courts admitted jurisdiction in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Lugano Convention (4A_249/2023).

On 26 November 2021, the Supreme Court of the Canton of Berne ruled in its decision (ZK 20 399) that the court of first instance had unjustifiably rejected a claim for product liability brought against Johnson & Johnson by a patient who had suffered from several complaints after the implant of a hip prosthesis, which was eventually removed. The Higher Court held that the product’s defectiveness in the sense of Article 4 of the Federal Product Liability Act must be assessed based on the reasonable safety expectations of an average patient at the time the product was brought to market, including knowledge available to physicians. The hip prosthesis was defective: it had a significantly higher revision rate than expected, caused toxic reactions in about half of patients, and was withdrawn from the market after just over five years. The fact that the manufacturer complied with regulatory requirements (such as CE-marking) did not preclude a finding of defectiveness under liability law. The court also clarified in relation to Article 5, paragraph 1, letter e of the Federal Product Liability Act that the manufacturer can escape liability only by proving that the defect could not have been detected by scientific or technical knowledge available at the time (development risk defence); the burden of proof for such evidence of exoneration is on the manufacturer. The appeal was therefore partially upheld and remanded to the lower court for further evidence and a new decision.

In its decision of 15 March 2021, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of food law also apply to intermediaries. In the case at hand, the package leaflet was qualified as inadmissible, even though it was only directed at the sales staff of drugstores and pharmacies (2C_733/2020).

In its decision of 31 May 2019 (2C_60/2018), the Federal Supreme Court specified that missing expert information from a preparation label, which therefore does not warn of a preparation-specific risk, is not to be considered a product defect in every case.

In its decision of 5 January 2015 (4A_365/2014; 4A_371/2014), the Federal Supreme Court held that, in the case of prescription drugs, the justified safety expectations of the product need to be assessed with regard to the safety expectations of the patient, but also with regard to the knowledge of the prescribing physician. In the specific case (concerning the contraceptive pill “Yasmin”), it was deemed sufficient that the warning of a possible increased risk of a thromboembolic event, compared to earlier generation contraceptive pills, was only included in the expert information, not in the patient information.

In its decision of 9 September 2013 (2C_13/2013), the Federal Supreme Court held that the malfunction of a product is considered a product defect if the product’s value is specifically based on its serviceability (ie, a fire extinguisher).

On 18 March 2011 (137 III 226), the Federal Supreme Court decided that a producer was not liable for any defects that were not detectable at the time of the market placement according to the then current state of scientific and technological knowledge (so-called development risks).

PFAS Legislation

Switzerland continues to tighten its regulatory framework on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Certain PFAS subgroups are already restricted under Annex 1.16 of the Ordinance on the Reduction of Risks relating to the Use of Certain Particularly Dangerous Substances, Preparations and Articles (ORRChem), irrespective of their use. Further restrictions entered into force in January 2026, subject to transitional periods until 1 November 2026, introducing additional limitations based on Regulation (EU) 2024/2462. In particular, they include a prohibition on the placing on the market of perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) and its precursor compounds above specified threshold limits. The restrictions primarily target applications where PFAS can be readily substituted, such as certain textiles and leather goods, food contact materials within the meaning of the Ordinance on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles (FUAO) made of paper and cardboard, as well as products including ski waxes and cosmetics within the meaning of the FUAO. Further regulatory developments are currently under discussion. In particular, a prohibition on the placing on the market of food packaging and single-use consumer goods containing PFAS above defined threshold limits is being considered. The proposed amendments are expected to enter into force on 1 December 2026.

Tobacco Regulation

Swiss tobacco regulation is currently in transition. While the current Federal Act on Tobacco Products and Electronic Cigarettes (the “Tobacco Products Act”) and the implementing Federal Council’s Ordinance on Tobacco Products and Electronic Cigarettes came into force on 1 October 2024, a further revision is expected to enter into force in 2027. This revised framework will primarily introduce stricter rules on the advertising of tobacco products and electronic cigarettes. While the amendments to the Tobacco Products Act have already been finalised, the implementing ordinance is still under development. In substance, the new regime will broadly prohibit advertising, sales promotion and sponsoring wherever minors may be reached, subject to limited exceptions where effective measures ensure that minors are neither exposed to nor able to access such activities. It will also introduce age verification requirements, in particular for online advertising, online sales and vending machine sales. By contrast, the rules currently in force since 1 October 2024 prohibit advertising where minors are targeted or likely to be exposed.

Unfair Competition Act

A new regulation outlining strict standards for climate-related claims in commercial communications came into force at the beginning of 2025. Under the new Article 3, paragraph 1, letter x of the Federal Act on Unfair Competition (UCA), claims relating to the climate impact of a company, product or service (eg, “climate friendly”, “CO₂ neutral” or “net zero”) must be substantiated with objective and verifiable evidence and may not be misleading, vague or imprecise.

The practical scope of Article 3, paragraph 1, letter x of the UCA has been further elaborated by the Federal Office for the Environment in its Enforcement Aid (cf unofficial English translation) published in March 2026. Although not legally binding, the document sets out key criteria for climate-related claims, particularly regarding objectivity and verifiability. It also identifies recognised methods and benchmarks under Swiss law, refers to relevant private standards and voluntary frameworks, and provides guidance on the use of offsetting as well as commonly used climate-related claims.

Product Ecodesign and Disposal

On 1 January 2025, an amendment to the Federal Act on the Protection of the Environment (EPA) came into force aiming to strengthen the circular economy and reduce environmental pollution. The revised EPA provides, among others, for the obligation to reuse or recycle waste if this is technically possible, economically viable and has less of an impact on the environment than alternative options. In addition, it authorises the Federal Council to impose obligations regarding the disposal and life cycle of products and packaging.

There are several areas of focus concerning future policy development in respect of product liability or product safety. The following developments are noteworthy.

Partial Revision of the Swiss Product Safety Act

With the entry into force of the Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on General Product Safety and the new European Market Surveillance Regulation 2019/1020, the Swiss Product Safety Act will partially be revised to incorporate the essential elements of these two EU regulations into Swiss law. This ensures that a comparable level of safety for the placing of products on the market is maintained in Switzerland, as has been the case to date. A first draft of the revised legislation was submitted for public consultation in June 2026. The proposed amendments address, in particular, e-commerce, market surveillance, national and international co-operation, access to European information and alert systems, and data protection. The partial revision aims to ensure that the Product Safety Act continues to provide a level of product safety equivalent to that of the EU. At the same time, it is intended to facilitate access for Swiss exporters to the EU internal market.

Swiss Product Liability Act – Mandate for Revision is Still Missing

On 8 December 2024, the new Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on liability for defective products and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC entered into force. With its entry into force, the existing system on product liability has been adapted to developments linked to transition towards a circular and digital economy as well as AI. Since the Swiss Product Liability Act has been aligned with the repealed Directive 85/374/EEC, an adaption of Swiss law to such new developments seems conceivable. However, the competent Swiss authority has not yet received a mandate to initiate a revision of the Swiss Product Liability Act (as of date of publication of this chapter of the guide).

Partial Revision of the Swiss Therapeutic Products Act

In the light of new technologies and legal developments in the EU, Switzerland is currently revising the Swiss Therapeutic Products Act, inter alia, in relation to drug safety for patients and drug safety in paediatrics, namely by creating a legal basis for a mandatory electronic medication plan or by establishing an obligation to use electronic systems to calculate drug dosages for children. In light of Regulation (EC) No 2007/1394, new regulations in relation to advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) shall also be implemented in order to grant access to new products and create a comparable level of safety to that in the EU. In relation to veterinary medicinal products, the partial revision aims to ensure equivalence of the Swiss law with EU law and to guarantee market access to novel and innovative therapies. The draft is currently under revision by the Parliament. In parallel, a further partial revision (TPA 3b) is already in preparation. It is expected to address measures against supply shortages, an extension of chiropractors’ competences, the individual dispensing of medicinal products, and a supervisory fee for medical devices. The consultation phase is planned for Q2 2026.

Packaging

A new Ordinance on Packaging (draft version) is expected to enter into force in spring 2027, replacing the current Ordinance on Beverage Containers. The new ordinance introduces, inter alia, fundamental requirements for the production and design of packaging materials, ensuring that resource efficiency and recyclability are considered from the design stage. It also establishes requirements for the take-back and recycling of single-use plastic packaging and beverage cartons, and extends the advance disposal fee to glass packaging used for food and cosmetic products.

Sustainability Reporting and Due Diligence Obligations

The Swiss Federal Council has prepared a draft of the new Federal Act on Sustainable Corporate Governance (NUFG), aiming to replace the current due diligence and reporting duties in the fields of human rights and environmental protection. The revised rules are based on the European CSRD and CSDDD and extend the scope of reporting and due diligence obligations to a broader range of companies as well as human rights and environmental topics. According to the draft Act, the reporting obligation and duty of care shall be suspended if the affected company is already subject to equivalent obligations under foreign law: eg, EU legislation. The consultation process will run until 9 July 2026.

AI Legislation

Currently, Swiss law does not provide for comprehensive legislation on AI. However, in 2025, Switzerland signed the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Convention”). The AI Convention is an international legal framework aiming to ensure that activities within the life cycle of AI systems are fully aligned with human rights and democracy standards. It outlines legal principles to ensure, among others, human dignity and individual autonomy, transparency, equality and non-discrimination, and privacy. Signatory states are required to implement measures ensuring AI systems are developed, deployed and monitored in compliance with these principles, including setting up supervisory authorities and providing effective legal remedies. Federal Departments will prepare a consultation draft by the end of 2026 to implement the AI Convention into Swiss law, focusing on transparency, data protection, non-discrimination and supervision. The Federal Council plans to focus initially on regulating the public sector but will also impose obligations on private actors where necessary.