Artificial intelligence (AI) has long been part of our everyday lives. AI has become indispensable in schools, universities and businesses. Given the rapid development of artificial intelligence and its increasing presence in everyday life, it is becoming increasingly important to examine its opportunities and risks.

On February 23, 2026, the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner and around 60 other national data protection authorites worldwide published a joint statement on AI-generated images. This statement marks an important step in the international discussion on privacy and data protection in the digital age.

Deepfakes and AI: Why Data Protection Authorities Worldwide Are Issuing Warnings

Data protection authorites have expressed serious concerns about systems that use artificial intelligence to generate realistic images or videos of identifiable individual without their consent. Such technologies carry a high risk of abuse, for example through the creation of non-consensual, intimate depictions (known as deepfakes). Childern and other vulnerable groups are particularly at risk of becoming targets of cyberbullying, sexual exploitation or identity theft.

Laws in Switzerland: Are AI-generated images permitted?

In many juristictions – including Switzerland – the creation or distribution of images that have not been created with consent can have criminal consequences. From a data protection perspective, that use of AI systems to create realistic images raises significant questions regarding the legality of data processing and the protection of privacy. Personal data my only be used if there is a legal basis for doing so or if the data subject has given their expressed consent. Companies offering such systems must ensure that appropriate technical and organizational measures are taken to prevent misuse and unauthorized processing.

Recommendations for working with AI

The joint statement by the data protection authorities sets out several key principles that all organizations should follow:

Conclusion: Techological progress requires responsibility

The risks posed by AI-generated images are global and require urgent regulatory action. While AI offers enormous opportunities, technological progress must not come at the expense of privacy, data protection and other fundamental rights.

Our law firm advises businesses on the legally compliant use of AI and on data protection issues. Please feel free to contact us with any questions regarding generative AI, data protection and your digitalisation projects..

A remarkable piece of Swiss cinema: «The Narrative» tells a story that moves, surprises, and resonates.

We are proud to have made a small contribution to this major project as legal advisors – and would like to thank the entire production team for their trust and for the appreciative mention in the film and at the preview screening.

This is a film that you don’t just watch, you experience. We congratulate the entire team on this successful work and wish them every success for the theatrical release on March 12, 2026!

There is hardly anything more unpleasant for tenants than being confronted with problems in their rented flat or house on a daily basis. Whether it’s a broken heater in winter, a dripping tap or a patch of mould on the wall – unfortunately, defects as those occur frequently and affect both short-term and long-term tenants, often regardless of how old the rental property is or what condition it is in.

The question quickly arises: Who is responsible for repairing the damage? Am I responsible as a tenant, or does the responsibility lie with the landlord?

This article explains what is legally considered to be a defect in a rental property and what rights and obligations both tenants and landlords have when it comes to rectifying these defects.

What is meant by a defect in the rental property?

A defect in the rental property exists if the flat or rented property is no longer suitable for the contractually agreed use or if promised features are missing. This means that the actual condition of the rental property differs from the condition that the landlord is obliged to provide according to the rental agreement or the law. A defect can refer to physical damage such as defective heating, leaky windows or mould, but also to the fact that promised features (e.g. particular quietness or certain amenities) are not present. The legal consequences of this depend, on the one hand, on the severity of the impairment and, on the other hand, on whether the tenant or a person for whom they are responsible is responsible for the defect (Art. 259a Abs. 1 OR).

Fault of the tenant

If the tenant is responsible for the defect, the landlord is not liable under Art. 259b ff. OR. Instead, the tenant may be liable for damages under Art. 97 OR.

Minor defects

In the case of minor defects – such as a burnt-out light bulb or a dripping tap – the tenant must pay for the repair themselves in accordance with Art. 259 OR. In practice, minor defects are generally considered to be damage costing up to around CHF 100–150.

Liability of the landlord

The landlord is also liable for defects even if he is not at fault or the tenant does not report the defect immediately. However, if the tenant fails to report the defect, he may be held liable for any consequential damage resulting from the delayed report. If a moderate or serious defect occurs that significantly impairs the normal use of the rented property, the tenant is entitled to the following rights under Art. 259a OR:

Removal of defects – Art. 259b OR

The landlord is obliged to remedy any defects that arise within a reasonable period of time. If he fails to do so, the tenant may – subject to Art. 259c OR – invoke the following rights:

In accordance with Art. 259c OR the right to have the defect remedied does not apply if the landlord provides a full replacement for the defective item within a reasonable period of time.

Reduction of rent – Art. 259d OR

The tenant may request a reduction in rent in the event of a moderate or serious defect. The courts apply a certain ‘materiality threshold’ in this regard. The impairment in the use of the rented property must amount to at least 5% or 2% in the case of a permanent impairment. The right to a rent reduction exists until the original, contractually agreed condition of the rental property has been fully restored.

Compensation for damages – Art. 259e OR

The landlord is liable for damage suffered by the tenant as a result of defects in the rented property.

Deposit of rent – Art. 259g/h OR

When renting immovable property, e.g. residential or commercial premises, tenants have the option of depositing the rent if the landlord fails to remedy any defects. The following conditions apply:

Important points regarding the deposit:

Please note: Simply withholding the rent does not meet the legal requirements and results in the tenant being in default of payment.

Our law firm provides advice on tenancy law and the rectification of rental defects. Please feel free to contact us without obligation if you have any questions about tenancy law and the rectification of rental defects.

Switzerland is strengthening its claim to be one of Europe’s leading centres of innovation. ETH Zurich plays a central role in this as a driving force. Three recent developments emphasise the country’s technological potential and digital sovereignty (personal selection):

All projects symbolise an innovation strategy based on scientific excellence as well as entrepreneurial scalability, sustainable infrastructure and regulatory foresight.

Digital sovereignty: The ETH large language model for public use

The LLM, launched by ETH Zurich, is the first AI technology to be tailored to Swiss legal requirements, multilingualism and the highest data protection standards. It is the result of a collaboration between EPFL and ETH Zurich and was trained on the ‘Alps’ supercomputer at the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS). For companies, administrations and, in particular, SMEs that value data-secure processes, this opens up new possibilities in the areas of automation, information indexing and modern customer interaction – without having to rely on global cloud platforms. This development illustrates how technological progress and location policy can be combined. Switzerland is thus positioning itself as a pioneer for trustworthy and independent digitalisation in both the public and private sectors.

Semiconductor expertise in the heart of Europe: the Swiss Chip Fablab

ETH Zurich is also marking a milestone in the area of hardware and semiconductor development: the planned participation in the Swiss Chip Fablab in the Dübendorf Innovation Park will create a network that combines research, development and production at a geopolitically secure, reliable location. The aim is to strengthen the resilience of supply chains and establish independent semiconductor expertise – a key concern in times of global uncertainty. It does not serve as an alternative to AI processor chips, which are predominantly manufactured in Taiwan, but rather to develop highly specialised chips for applications such as energy, mobility, medicine or communication. The Fablab offers start-ups, established companies and international partners access to state-of-the-art infrastructure, support with regulatory issues and the opportunity for strategic networking.

New ETH hub for the canton of Lucerne: strengthening the region and promoting innovation

Thanks to the CHF 100 million donation from the Jörg G. Bucherer Foundation to the ETH, an earth observation centre is to be built in the canton of Lucerne. Emmen/Viscosistadt, Horw around the University of Applied Sciences or Hochdorf are being discussed, for example. This shows how the power of innovation can be strengthened in a targeted manner and promoted in a decentralised manner. Such an ETH hub creates new opportunities for companies and start-ups in Central Switzerland to enter into direct dialogue with research and teaching – and sends out a strong signal for the attractiveness of Emmen as a location for technology and innovation. The regional anchoring of technological excellence contributes to the broad development of innovation potential and the utilisation of synergies between science and business.

What does this mean for companies, investors and entrepreneurs?

For technology-orientated companies, investors and innovative entrepreneurs, new opportunities for collaboration arise, but also complex regulatory issues:

As a boutique law firm from Lucerne specialising in data protection law, digital business models and commercial law issues, we assist companies, authorities and institutions with all the challenges of digital transformation. Our team supports you in all matters relating to data protection and IT projects, as well as in commercial law issues such as corporate governance, restructuring and M&A. We emphasise legally compliant innovation, regulatory compliance and pragmatic implementation. From data protection impact assessments and licence agreements to cross-company transformation, you benefit from our expertise in the digital and business environment.

Contact us for questions about digital business models.

Your expert for travel law

Whether it’s a cancelled flight, lost luggage or trouble with the tour operator – Julius Paulicka will stand up for your rights. As a specialist in travel law and a lawyer admitted in Switzerland and Germany, I know the stumbling blocks on holiday and will help you to assert your claims if the anticipation of your trip is spoilt.

Travelling from Switzerland – your rights know no bounds

Switzerland is strongly orientated towards European standards when it comes to regulating travel rights. Package holidays in Switzerland are governed by the Federal Package Travel Act, which is based on the EU Package Travel Directive. As a result, Swiss travellers benefit from comprehensive protection in the event of defects, service deviations and in the event of the tour operator’s insolvency. Individual travellers also benefit from clear claims in the event of defects and can demand compensation if the requirements of the Code of Obligations are met.

Flight rights – enforcement in Switzerland too

In the event of flight delays or cancellations and problems with baggage, Swiss consumers can often also rely on the EU Air Passenger Rights Regulation (EC No. 261/2004), as this is often applicable under bilateral agreements and in air transport – for example, if the departure takes place in Switzerland or an EU country. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is also regularly taken into account by Swiss courts, as Switzerland has expressly recognised the primacy of international law within the framework of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons.

Competent advice on all travel law issues

As a specialist in travel law, I will help you to enforce your rights. Not with empty phrases, but with sound expertise, empathy and a genuine understanding of your situation, I will support you in

Special features for Swiss travellers

Even though Switzerland is not a member of the EU, Swiss travellers benefit from the association with important EU legal acts in the area of travel and consumer protection. The application of European air passenger rights and the recognition of corresponding ECJ case law are an integral part of the Swiss legal framework in travel law according to the current interpretation.

Your advantage with a specialised law firm in Central Switzerland

Travel relaxed – I will take care of your rights in the event of a dispute. Contact me for a non-binding initial assessment.

If an employee is absent due to illness for an extended period of time, this can lead to uncertainty. It raises questions regarding a possible dismissal. When may a notice of termination be issued during the employee’s absence and in which cases not?

This article is intended to provide an overview of the protection against dismissal during illness.

What is meant by temporary protection against dismissal?

If the probationary period is completed and there is an ordinary employment relationship, protection against dismissal for a certain period of time applies in the event of illness of the employee in accordance with Art. 336c para. 1 lit. b CO.

The reason for the temporary ban on dismissal is that it is unreasonable to expect the employee to look for a new job during his or her illness, or that she would be unlikely to be hired by a new employer due to her illness-related absence. The purpose of the restriction on dismissal is to protect the employee from unemployment as a result of their illness.

As a prerequisite for the application of a suspension period, the employee must be ill through no fault of their own. The illness must be of a certain severity for the temporary protection against dismissal to apply. Protection against dismissal does not apply in the case of a simple summer flu, cold or similar. It is worth submitting a medical certificate to the employer as proof.

Each new illness that has no causal connection to the previous illness triggers a new blocking period. For example, if the employee was on sick leave due to a depressive episode, this triggers a blocking period. If the employee falls ill with Lyme disease in the same year due to a tick bite, this triggers a new blocking period. A causal connection and therefore no new blocking period is triggered in the case of relapses, recurrences or late effects.

Excursus: No temporary protection against dismissal in the event of job-related illness

However, if the illness has a direct connection to the workplace, this cannot justify protection against dismissal according to federal court case law. [1] The Federal Supreme Court justifies the lack of protection against dismissal by the fact that the employee is able to look for and take up another job precisely because of the job-related nature of the illness. Finally, it must be mentioned here that if an employee is completely unable to work due to the job-related illness, the protection against dismissal applies again.

What is the temporal effect of the restriction on dismissal?

Art. 336c para. 1 lit. b CO provides for different blocking periods for each year of service: 30 days in the first year of service, 90 days from the second to the fifth year of service and 180 days from the sixth year of service. If the absence due to illness lasts beyond the change of year of service and a longer blocking period is applied, then the longer blocking period applies. The days that have already elapsed are deducted from the longer blocking period.

The length of the blocking period is determined by the actual length of the absence due to illness. Accordingly, the protection against dismissal ends at the moment when the inability to work ceases. The lengths specified in Art. 336c para. 1 lit. b CO only represent a maximum length of the blocking period.

What is the effect of temporary protection against dismissal?

During the period of protection against dismissal, any dismissal issued by the employer is null and void. This means that it is as if no notice of termination had ever been given. In order to terminate the employment relationship, the employer must terminate the employment relationship again at the end of the month following expiry of the period of suspension. The employment relationship ends at the end of the notice period. However, if the employee terminates the employment relationship during the notice period, the termination is effective.

If the employer gives notice of termination before the employee falls ill and the employee falls ill during the notice period, the notice of termination remains effective. The notice period is interrupted in accordance with Art. 336c para. 2 CO and resumed after the end of the qualifying period.

Frequently asked questions about protection against dismissal during illness

How long does the blocking period last?

The length of the blocking period is determined by the actual length of the absence due to illness. Accordingly, the protection against dismissal ends the moment the inability to work ceases. The lengths specified in Art. 336c para. 1 lit. b CO only represent a maximum length of the blocking period. Accordingly, the blocking period ends in any case after.

    • 30 days in the first year of service

    • 90 days form the second to the fifth year of service and 

    • 180 days from the sixth year of service.

What happens if there are several cases of illness?

In the event of several independent cases of illness within one year, a new blocking period can be triggered for each case. However, relapses or sequelae of the same illness do not trigger a new qualifying period.

What happens if an illness occurs during the notice period?

If an employee falls ill during the notice period after receiving notice of termination, the notice period is interrupted for the duration of the incapacity to work (at most until the end of the blocking period) and continues to run after the end of the illness. A notice of termination issued by the employer during a valid blocking period is null and void and must be issued again after the blocking period has expired.

[1] BGer 1C_595/2023 Urteil vom 26.3.2024.

Debtors should not be able to discharge their financial obligations through abusive bankruptcy. At its meeting on October 25, 2023, the Federal Council enacted the necessary amendments to the law and ordinances, in particular the Federal Act on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy, with effect from January 1, 2025.

As a result, the hurdles to freeing oneself from debts to the detriment of creditors have become higher. If the debtor is registered in the Commercial Registry, claims under public law will no longer be pursued for seizure but for bankruptcy from January 1, 2025. These claims include, for example, tax arrears, fines or outstanding state pension contributions. Companies are therefore exposed to an increased risk of bankruptcy. Art. 43 no. 1 and 1bis SchKG, which excluded these claims from bankruptcy proceedings, will be deleted from the law.

This change has a major impact on companies and their creditors. This is because, unlike the previous procedure with loss certificates (‘Pfändungsverlustscheinen’), bankruptcy proceedings can put an end to a company’s activities. Only companies that are generally subject to bankruptcy are affected. Who is subject to bankruptcy is determined by Art. 39 para. 1 SchKG. Parliament justified the change by stating that debtors should no longer be able to misuse bankruptcy proceedings to avoid their financial obligations, such as salary payments or debts, and thus harm other people.

Private creditors benefit because the creditor who files for bankruptcy bears the costs. As the public sector is the most common creditor, private individuals can file their claim free of charge after the state has initiated bankruptcy proceedings. However, the deadline of 15 months for filing a bankruptcy petition must be observed. At the same time, this makes it more difficult for the authorities to enforce their claims, as they now have to go through the more complex bankruptcy proceedings.

The Federal Act on Combating Abusive Bankruptcy not only resulted in amendments to several laws, namely the Swiss Code of Obligations, the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act, the Swiss Criminal Code and the Federal Act on Direct Federal Taxation. As a result, the Commercial Register Ordinance and the Criminal Records Ordinance were also revised in order to provide the necessary implementing provisions for the implementation of the law.

From now on, bans on activities entered in the criminal register will be reported to the Federal Supervisory Authority for the Commercial Register, which will check whether a ban on activities is incompatible with entries in the commercial register. In addition, measures can be taken that go as far as deleting the person concerned from the commercial register. Furthermore, the cantonal tax authorities are obliged to notify the commercial register offices if a company has not submitted the annual financial statement required by law. These provisions strengthen cooperation between the authorities and prevent such companies from operating for long periods without keeping accounts and thus acting to the detriment of their creditors.

Presently there is no dedicated Artificial Intelligence (AI) legislation in Switzerland. Nevertheless, given the ever increasing adoption and use of AI tools in various sectors – in particular in finance, the risks associated with such systems would inevitably require thorough scrutiny.

To this end, the Swiss Financial Markets Authority (FINMA) has recently[i] published a set of findings and observations which take a risk-based approach defined from operational, data-related, IT and cyber alongside legal and reputational perspectives. The supervised entities would therefore need to identify, assess, monitor, manage and control the risks associated with their AI applications, either as an in-house development or outsourced, and to make sure these are aligned and reflected in their respective governance models.

Above all, FINMA highlights operational risks such as lack of robustness, correctness, bias and explainability, the risks associated with third party service providers as well as challenges in the allocation of responsibilities and accountability as the most compelling issues.

Once identified, the ‘materiality’ of the risks in question would need to be determined. In other words, to define whether a given AI application may carry a higher threshold in cases where it “…is used to comply with supervisory law or to perform critical functions, or when customers or employees are strongly affected by its results”.

From the perspective of date-related risks, it is apparent that incorrect, inconsistent, incomplete, unrepresentative or outdated data would undermine the credibility and effectiveness of an AI application. Therefore, certain measures would need to be put in place to ensure input data integrity and that the availability of and access to data is secured. On the other hand, FINMA refers to regular checks in order to detect data drifts, and to validation methods in order to guarantee ongoing quality of output data.

Lastly, it is noted that explainability of results would be critical for an effective assessment of an AI application, whereby the drivers of a given application and its behaviour under varying circumstances and conditions would need to be comprehensible even to non-experts such as clients, investors and supervisory authorities etc. For those applications carrying higher ‘materiality’, the results of an independent review forming an informed and unbiased opinion as to the reliability of the application in question would also need to be taken into account in the development phase of that application.

[i] See here https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2024/12/20241218-mm-finma-am-08-24/.

The new FINMA circular 2025/2 on rules of conduct under the Financial Services Act (FinSA) and Financial Services Ordinance (FinSO) which is set to enter into force on 1 January 2025[i] aims to put together a series of uniform standards for the provision of information and support of clients in the financial services sector.

A transitional period until 30 June 2025 is introduced for the implementation of certain requirements.

The circular will essentially be applicable to banks and security firms, managers of collective assets, companies with provision of fund management as well as portfolio management services. Therefore, those financial service providers which are not subject to FINMA supervision would in principle fall outside of the scope of the circular.

In a nutshell, a number of points as follows.

[i] See here https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2024/11/20241121-mm-rs-verhaltenspflichten-fidleg/.

On 17 October 2024[i] the European Commission adopted the first implementing rules of cybersecurity of critical entities and networks, in consonance with the NIS2 Directive, in the form of an Implementing Regulation.[ii] The Regulation is set to come into force in late November, to be precise 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal – which took place on 7 November 2024.

The adoption of the Regulation also coincides with the last day of the deadline set for the EU Member States to transpose the NIS2 Directive into their national laws.

The implementing rules essentially detail measures pertaining to cybersecurity risk management, and reporting obligations to national authorities across the bloc which are imposed on companies providing digital infrastructures and services in the event “significant” incidents may occur. Specifically, those companies with provision of digital services for instance cloud computing service providers, data centre service providers, online marketplaces, online search engines and social networking platforms would fall under the scope.

NIS2 Directive[iii] re-categories and noticeably expands the previous scope, which initially covered two categories of i) operators of essential services (OESs) and ii) relevant digital service providers (RDSPs), by classifying covered entities under either Essential Entities (EE) or Important Entities (IE).

EE includes sectors of energy, transport, finance, public administration, health, space, water supply and digital infrastructure such as cloud computing service providers and ICT management.

IE includes sectors of postal services, waste management, chemicals, research organisations, food processing, manufacturing and digital providers such as social networks, search engines and online marketplaces.

With micro and small entities in principle excluded from the scope, the Directive puts in place a size threshold. In other words, a threshold of 250 employees, annual turnover of €50 million or balance sheet of €43 million concerning the EE entities, respectively a threshold of 50 employees, annual turnover of €10 million or balance sheet of €10 million concerning those under the IE list.

Nevertheless, an entity may still be considered as ‘essential’ or ‘important’ irrespective of its size, if it is the sole provider of a critical service for societal or economic activity in a given Member State, respectively a trust service provider or any central or regional government entity.

Similar to GDPR, the Directive requires Member States to impose penalties for non-compliance, the ratio of which would differ per classification. €10 million or at least 2% of global annual turnover for the previous fiscal year, whichever is higher, for the EE entities, respectively €7 million or at least 1.4% of global annual turnover for the previous fiscal year, whichever is higher, for the IE entities.

Notably, the covered entities’ management bodies, such as board of directors, would also be held liable for non-compliance.

On the other hand, the Swiss Information Security Act (Informationssicherheitsgesetz, ISG) applies primarily to the federal administration, cantonal authorities and their partner companies in the country, and its revised version is set to come into force by 1 January 2025. In this context, partner companies could be active in similar sectors as those within the scope of the Directive in the EU, such as financial and information and communication sectors as well as those service providers and manufacturers of hardware and software products that are used by critical infrastructures.

Therefore, supplier companies would indirectly fall under the scope of ISG, similar to that of the Directive in the EU. The Swiss entities forming part of a supply chain which ultimately target those EU based entities covered by the Directive, would as a result be affected by the requirements and obligations under both instruments.

Specifically, the subsidiaries and branches of Swiss entities registered within the EU, which fall under either of the EE or IE classifications, will have to comply with the Directive in the EU and comply with the requirement to register with the national authority of an affiliated Member State, among other things. In this scenario, the parent or affiliated entity in Switzerland may also be indirectly caught under the radar of the Directive through the supply chain connection.

[i] See here https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5342.

[ii] See here https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2690/oj.

[iii] See here https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2555.