On September 25, 2008, the UK Information Commissioner gave the Liberal Democrats 30 days to cease making automated direct dialling calls to subscribers who had not given their prior consent to receive these calls.  The Party leader, Nick Clegg featured on the message and he sought to canvass voters to support the Party.  David Smith, Deputy Information Commissioner, said that “the promotion of a political party counts as marketing … many people find unsolicited automated calls particularly intrusive and annoying so it is important that any organisation making such calls ensures that individuals have given their consent before they are targeted”.  The source of the rule requiring prior consent is found in two data protection directives, as well as other EU laws (e.g. the E Commerce directive) that specifically seek to limit what are known in EU jargon as an “unsolicited commercial communication” – direct dialled automated messages and spam are the best examples.

The recent decision issued by the US Supreme Court in the Riegel v. Medtronic case has surely produced a shock wave for the plaintiff bar in the US.  And to find that Trial Inc. was shocked is surprising.

It is surprising, in the first place, on the facts. The claimant brought suit against the manufacturer of a catheter which ruptured during heart surgery when the surgeon used it notwithstanding the fact that it was contraindicated by the manufacturer for the conditions suffered by the patient (his coronary artery was heavily calcified, and the device’s labeling stated that its use was contraindicated for patients with diffuse or calcified stenoses). In addition, the device was used by the surgeon against the instructions of use (the catheter rated burst pressure was eight atmospheres, but it was inflated to ten atmospheres by the surgeon). What appeared to be then a clear medical malpractice case against the surgeon was converted into a claim directed solely against the manufacturer of the device on the basis of negligence and various product liability claims that criticized the catheter’s design, manufacturing and instructions.

Tightening of Swiss Anti-corruption Legislation

Initially and over decades, Swiss anti-corruption legislation aimed at dishonest officials in Switzerland. The main concern was to protect the integrity of the Swiss civil service and the public’s trust in the impartiality of the government. In 2000, it became illegal in Switzerland to actively bribe foreign (i.e., non-Swiss) officials. Subsequently, the tax law was amended as well and it was no longer possible to deduct bribes from taxable income.

After military service and extensive travelling he attended the Law School at Uppsala University. Partly in parallel with his legal studies he earned a degree in business administration at Stockholm University.

Jacques-Antoine Robert, Simmons & Simmons – Paris, France

Marla R. Weston, Smith & Partners – Boeblingen, Germany

Craig Proctor, Shook Hardy & Bacon - Geneva, Switzerland

Oliver Kunz, Walder Wyss & Partners Ltd. – Zurich, Switzerland

Please Join Us For The 2^nd Annual DRI Europe Conference

Culture Clash! Data Protection, Freedom of Information and Discovery.
How to Protect Your Business in Transnational Disputes

May 13-14, 2009 - Hotel Vierjahreszeiten Kempinski – Munich, Germany