The Austrian Supreme Court
(Oberste Gerichtshof or OGH) has ruled on the obligation of newspapers to label
“convenience” articles as sponsored content. Under Austrian law, articles that
are published in return for advertisements do not have to be labeled as such.
According to the Court, the "average reader" does not assume that
media are neutral, explaining that such an obligation only applies to paid
publications, but not to publications of “mere convenience”.
This case involved a legal dispute between two free
newspapers. One of the free newspapers complained that the other free newspaper was publishing editorial articles in return for paid ads without indicating
that the articles are sponsored.
The court ruled that "The average, attentive and
critical reader today assumes that editorial contributions in periodical media
are not “neutral” and therefore not completely objective. When published
articles are written by journalists, including well-known and reputable ones, those
articles reflect their personal opinions, be it in political, scientific or
economic aspect."
If, however, money is spent on the concrete publication of
contributions, then these must continue to be marked as "advertisements",
"advertising", “paid content” or "sponsored" under Austrian
law.
With its ruling, the Supreme Court has reversed the previous
rulings of two lower courts that each confirmed that “convenience” articles
must be labeled as sponsored content.
The PR Ethics
Council in Austria criticized the judgment as being "highly
problematic". According to Gabriele Faber-Wiener, chairperson of the PR Ethics
Council, "the ruling will open the door for intertwined business interests
and readers will be deceived."
(Image: © Hubertl / Wikimedia Commons / License CC-BY-SA 4.0)
