[S6eUL]

This is not my area of expertise but I am a Swiss lawyer.

- Switzerland does indeed have freedom of speech and press but this does not mean that you can say "whatever you want", not to the same extent as in the US at least.

- What could follow here is either civil or criminal litigation or both. Relevant are Art. 28 ff. of the Civil Code [1] or Art. 173 of the Penal Code [2].

- However low the chance of success for Proton AG might be here, do not "open a dialogue" and do not "explain" or "justify" your arguments further, as other commenters have suggested. I cannot stress this enough, OP.

- Faced with a lawsuit, your best option by far would be to consult with a lawyer. If that is too expensive or disproportionate for such a small blog, your second best option would probably be to ignore them to see if they acutally file a lawsuit. In this case you will still have ample time to seek counsel later.

[1] https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/en#book_1/...

[2] https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/en#art_173

[codingdave]

Thanks for clarifying - I appreciate the correction to my admittedly non-local knowledge.

But I'd love to hear more rationale why it would unwise to open a dialogue? Not specific to this scenario, of course, but in general what risk does that expose?

[S6eUL]

Any statements made in writing could end up being admitted as evidence. Since OP might have to prove that what they stated was factual or that they had reason to believe it was factual, they should exercise utmost caution in their correspondence. What is beneficial and what is not is almost impossible to evaluate for a "non-lawyer". People are often naive when it comes to the legal process and end up dumbfounded when the opposing party twists their every word.

Amendment to my original comment: It just crossed my mind that the federal law against unfair competition (UWG) could also be applicable.

[nixgeek]

All of the dialogue will probably be admissible should this eventually be litigated, OP will be corresponding with a lawyer, OP is not a lawyer, OP has substantial risk to consider about whether this dialogue would make their situation worse through e.g. admitting some of the article isn’t factual or is defamatory.