Pharmaceutical Advertising in
Switzerland: Key Trends and Developments
in 2026

Pharmaceutical advertising in Switzerland continues to evolve in response to regulatory developments, digital marketing practices and increasing compliance expectations. Companies operating in the life sciences sector must navigate a complex framework of statutory rules, Swissmedic guidance and industry self-regulation to ensure compliant promotion of medicinal products.

The Main Drivers in Swiss Pharmaceutical Advertising

Background

The pharmaceutical advertising landscape is undergoing significant changes, and the regulation of pharmaceutical advertising is being challenged by new and increasingly sophisticated demands. The “pen and notepad” days when promotional practice and regulation predominantly focused on direct advertising and gifts are definitely over. In their wake, pharmaceutical advertising is becoming ever more multifaceted and complex, as it develops towards fully integrated and often digital stakeholder relationship solutions. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly relevant to neighbouring legal fields such as compliance, litigation and investigations, as well as information governance and data protection.

Crucially, co-operation between the industry and various stakeholders along the entire therapeutic products development and value chain is gaining ever greater importance. Never was this more prominent than during the COVID-19 pandemic. Without manifold co-operation between the industry, research and healthcare professionals, as well as their organisations, research and development would have advanced far less quickly, and therapeutic products would have been less well targeted and would have entered the market much later.

Statistics of the regulatory disclosures of pecuniary benefits granted by pharmaceutical companies in Switzerland show that the amounts paid to healthcare organisations remain at a high level and recently increased (CHF140.6 million in 2024), while the payments to HCPs remain at a stable level (CHF8.1 million in 2024) and while the transfers of value for research and development have slightly decreased (CHF104.2 million in 2024). While the latter fluctuations are probably largely due to the changing intensity of activities in the area of clinical research, it appears that there has been continuing co-operation and direct support from professionals to healthcare organisations after the decline during the coronavirus pandemic. The numbers are still high compared to other European countries, and it remains important that all parties involved in such collaborations act according to high ethical standards.

Patients as customers

Complementing the traditional focus on prescribers, patients and their organisations are increasingly being recognised as the true customers of healthcare. As patient-focused alliances become more widespread, integrity and transparency will become ever more crucial. This affects the entire therapeutic product life cycle, from the identification of unmet medical needs, to research and development, to the launch – where better informed regulatory approval discussions and patient-centred value stories come into focus – and the commercialisation, including generation of real-world product knowledge, improvement of the patient experience and treatment adherence, and support for access and reimbursement.

Digitalisation

The pharmaceutical advertising landscape is also shaped by the progress in digital technologies and by a shift to electronic advertising that was fuelled in part by the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the number of advertisements for professional promotion in the relevant Swiss trade media is estimated to have fallen by 20% in 2021. Digital engagement of patients and healthcare professionals can take many forms, such as:

• marketing and communication to raise disease and brand awareness;
• patient community-building on social media;
• patient education and training;
• support for treatment adherence and monitoring;
• patient-generated health data;
• wearables, apps and devices;
• pharma-as-a-service;
• big data; and
• personalised and precision medicine.

At the same time, a new style of patient advocacy is gaining traction, driven by the increasing focus of the pharmaceutical industry on rare diseases and orphan drugs.

The regulatory environment

In a regulatory environment shaped by a ban on pre-approval marketing and direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs, such as in Switzerland, pharmaceutical companies seek to navigate this challenging landscape with multiple different strategies, including:

• disease awareness programmes;
• dissemination of scientific drug information; and
• indirect communication through healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations, patients and patient organisations.

Meanwhile, the limits for permissible pharmaceutical advertising are narrow, and enforcement in this area is active, with competitors frequently bringing claims against each other and authorities issuing fines and other orders. Reputational considerations play an important role too, and put a spotlight on integrity and transparency in particular.

In Switzerland, a series of regulatory and self-regulatory measures and initiatives have recently been, and are still being, put into effect to reflect these changes in the pharmaceutical advertising landscape. They are spread over various different, and partially disparate, regulations, guidelines and best practice codes. This makes navigating the landscape dependent, in large part, on legal and regulatory expertise as well as extensive practical industry experience.

The Integrity and Transparency Regime

As of 1 January 2020, an integrity and transparency regime was introduced into the amended Therapeutic Products Act (TPA). The amended regulation shows obvious parallels with the criminal law on corruption in the Criminal Code (CC). The Ordinance on Integrity and Transparency in the Therapeutic Products Sector (TPITO) contains the implementing provisions. A parliamentary initiative that requires disclosure by hospitals and doctors of their vested interests was adopted by the competent parliamentary committee and released for public consultation in 2025.

Factors influencing treatment

To enhance integrity, the granting and acceptance of pecuniary advantages in connection with prescription medicinal products are prohibited if they can influence the choice of treatment. Article 55 para 2 TPA and Articles 3 et seq TPITO explicitly describe the advantages that are considered permissible. These are, for example:

• advantages of modest value that are relevant for medicinal or pharmaceutical practice;
• support for research, education and training as long as certain criteria are met; and
• compensation for equivalent services in return.

Price discounts and refunds granted on the purchase of therapeutic products are also permitted if they do not influence the choice of treatment. Healthcare professionals are obliged to pass on these benefits to their patients or their insurers. As a result of a parallel amendment to the Health Insurance Act (HIA), healthcare professionals can agree with insurers to use a smaller portion of the obtained advantages for quality improvement measures (Article 56 para 3 lit b, para 3 bis HIA). As a second core element of the new regime, the granting and acceptance of price discounts and rebates for the purchase of therapeutic products (medicinal products and medical devices) must in principle be made transparent to the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) upon request (Article 56 TPA; Article 10 TPITO). The distinction between discounts and equivalent compensation often proves difficult in practice.

Enforcement

Violations of Articles 55 et seq of the TPA may trigger administrative measures or criminal sanctions against the acting individuals (Articles 66 et seq, Article 86 para 1 lit h, Article 87 para 1 lit h TPA), or even against the companies or their management (Articles 6 et seq Administrative Criminal Law Act; Article 102 CC).

A 2024 parliamentary motion calls for greater pricing transparency by allowing pharmacies to display the actual payable prices of prescription medicines, including discounts, and enabling patients to compare products online. The Federal Council confirmed in November 2024 that the Ordinance on Advertising of Medicinal Products (OMPA) must be amended accordingly, and the motion was approved by the National Council in December 2024 and by the Council of States in September 2025.

At the beginning of February 2025, the FOPH launched a whistle-blowing platform for reporting alleged violations of the provisions on integrity and transparency (Articles 55 and 56 TPA and the TPITO), as well as the obligation to pass on benefits to health insurers and patients (Article 56 para 3 HIA). Accordingly, the FOPH is pursuing a more active enforcement approach.

In December 2025, the FOPH issued additional interpretative guidance in the form of FAQs on the integrity provisions applicable to the medicinal products sector, with a particular focus on Article 55 TPA and Article 7 TPITO. Although the FAQs do not constitute binding law and the permissibility of any given arrangement remains dependent on the specific circumstances of the case, they provide important guidance. The FOPH has further indicated that it will actively monitor compliance with, and enforce, this guidance as of 1 January 2026:

• The updated FAQs clarify the notion of so-called commensurate (“fair market value”) compensation for services, which is intended to neutralise the risk of undue influence arising from a financial contribution by ensuring that it is offset by a service of equivalent value rendered by an HCP or organisation. According to the FOPH, the commensurateness of compensation is generally assessed by reference to market‑conform hourly rates. Compensation will typically be lower where the service can be provided within the scope of the HCP’s regular professional activity, and higher where it requires additional work beyond that activity. The required level of expertise, as well as the scope of the HCP’s liability and responsibility, are also decisive factors. Compensation, or its amount, cannot be justified solely on the basis of “free market” considerations. That said, the assessment requires only an approximate equivalence of value in each individual case, rather than strict equality.
• Outside of the purchase of prescription-only medicinal products, examples of services of equivalent value include the following, provided they have no promotional purpose: teaching; expert and advisory activities; scientific studies/clinical trials; and participation in advisory bodies, workshops or market research. Practice experience reports are generally not compensable, except when published in a recognised scientific medium. Compensation for transmitting sales figures may only be based on the actual time spent, not on the value of the data. With modern systems, this effort is usually low.
• Reimbursement of meal expenses up to a maximum amount of CHF100 is permitted solely in connection with a “specialist discussion” and the provision of an actual professional service. No written agreement is required.
• Payments for visits by pharmaceutical sales representatives are generally not permitted, as there is no equivalent service provided by the HCP and the visit is closely linked to the prescription, dispensing or use of prescription-only medicinal products. No compensation is allowed for product feedback either, as such visits regularly have a “promotional effect”.
• In medical practices, pharmacies and other HCOs, compensation may be provided only for the actual working time of HCPs or their assistants in connection with promotional activities. This includes, in particular, corporate image promotion by pharmaceuticals that include prescription-only medicinal products in their product range, disease awareness campaigns for therapeutic areas for which the company has prescription-only medicinal products in its product range, and information campaigns by companies with a connection to prescription-only medicinal products. All forms of advertising (eg, screens, banners, brochure holders) are covered. By contrast, this guidance does not cover advertising for OTC products (Categories D and E), corporate image promotion by companies that have no prescription-only medicinal products in their product range, unpaid advertising in medical practices, pharmacies or other HCOs, and disease awareness campaigns with no relation to prescription only medicines.

It will be up to future case law to determine whether the FOPH’s new guidance withstands practical scrutiny. In particular, questions arise as to how – irrespective of whether the company is a manufacturer of prescription-only medicines – market rate compensation may be paid for advertising non-prescription drugs, while only the actual working time may be remunerated for image or awareness campaigns as, according to the FOPH, market-based remuneration could in such cases unduly influence the prescribing behaviour of HCPs.

Clinical trials

Beyond the realm of therapeutic products marketing, integrity provisions apply in particular in connection with clinical trials of therapeutic products (Articles 53 et seq TPA; Human Research Act). Persons involved in clinical trials with medicinal products and medical devices, including the sponsor, must maintain scientific integrity and in particular must disclose conflicts of interest (Article 3 Clinical Trials Ordinance (ClinO), Article 3 para 1 lit a Ordinance on Clinical Trials with Medical Devices, amended as per 26 May 2022 to also apply to in vitro diagnostics).

Increasingly Strict Self-Regulation for the Majority of Swiss Pharmaceutical Companies

Pharmaceutical self-regulation is dominated by the Pharma Code and the Pharma Cooperation Code of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Switzerland (the “Pharma Codes”). These codes cover the entire range of medicinal products – ie, both prescription and non-prescription, patented originals as well as generics and biosimilars (but not medical devices) – and have been adopted by the respective industry associations:

• scienceindustries (Wirtschaftsverband Chemie Pharma Life Sciences);
• Interpharma (Verband der forschenden pharmazeutischen Firmen der Schweiz);
• vips (Vereinigung Pharmafirmen in der Schweiz);
• ASSGP (Schweizerischer Fachverband für Selbstmedikation); and
• Intergenerika (Schweizer Verband der Generika und Biosimilar Firmen).
• Members of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) are required to sign the respective country codes. Accordingly, the majority of pharmaceutical companies in Switzerland are bound by the Pharma Code (129) and the Pharma Cooperation Code (66).

The Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) Guidelines on collaboration between the medical profession and industry were comprehensively revised in August 2022 in accordance with the new integrity and transparency provisions of the TPA and the TPITO, as well as international recommendations and industry codes. Among others, they now also cover virtual events, and they recommend the disclosure of vested interests and pecuniary benefits. Their scope of application has been extended beyond physicians to now also cover other healthcare professionals.

Above and beyond legal requirements

While state law and regulations focus on protecting human health in connection with the use of therapeutic products, self-regulation is intended to prevent undue competition and unethical market behaviour. The Pharma Codes generally reflect the legal requirements, but often go beyond them. A Code Secretariat is entrusted with supervision of compliance with the Pharma Codes (Section 7 Pharma Code; Section 5 Pharma Cooperation Code).

In broad terms, the Pharma Code contains the general integrity rules in both the analogue and digital spheres, and the Pharma Cooperation Code contains the requirements for disclosure and transparency of pecuniary benefits to healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations and patient organisations. Unlike the Pharma Code, the Pharma Cooperation Code is limited to interactions in the context of prescription medicinal products (Section 11.2.1). This is because the purpose of disclosure is generally understood to create transparency with regard to any influences on prescribing behaviour.

Integrity and transparency

Following the above-mentioned revision of the TPA and the coming into force of the new integrity and transparency regime pursuant to the TPITO, as well as the Code Consolidation of the EFPIA, the Pharma Codes have also been comprehensively revised. The most recent revised codes came into force on 1 October 2025.

The Pharma Code has traditionally adopted a stricter approach to integrity than that adopted by state regulation. For example, it completely prohibits any offer or payment for entertainment and other leisure or hospitality activities (Section 32.5). The integrity provisions of the revised Pharma Code (Section 15) have now been updated and further tightened to align with Article 55 of the TPA and the TPITO.

Accordingly, donations and grants (ie, money, assets or services not intended as compensation for a contribution that is delivered in support of healthcare, scientific research or medical training) may only be awarded to healthcare and patient organisations, but never to healthcare professionals (with the exception of support contributions for participation in continuing education and training, Article 6 TPITO). Their range of permissible purposes has been restricted, and they have to be documented in writing in order to avoid a misuse of funds (Sections 15.5 et seq Pharma Code).

In order to clarify that allowances for meals are only permissible in consideration of an equivalent service (Article 7 TPITO), such allowances are now only permissible in the context of expert discussions and events, whereby the limit per healthcare professional per meal has been reduced to CHF100 (Section 15.4 Pharma Code). This goes beyond statutory law, which allows this limit to be exceeded, subject to a written agreement. Furthermore, a new bid on multi-sponsoring has been introduced, whereby healthcare and patient organisations may not generally be required to exclusively support a pharmaceutical company (Section 15.7 Pharma Code).

As regards transparency, the self-regulatory obligation to disclose pecuniary benefits to healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations in the context of prescription medicinal products (Section 15 Pharma Cooperation Code) has traditionally gone beyond Article 56 of the TPA and Article 10 of the TPITO, which are limited to the disclosure of price discounts and rebates and do not apply to pecuniary benefits in their entirety. The revised Pharma Cooperation Code now aligns the disclosure requirements for pecuniary benefits to patient organisations with those for healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations (Section 45.3). To achieve as much transparency as possible, disclosure should, wherever possible, be made on an individual basis (Section 25.2). In fact, average consent rates to transparency disclosure by healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations are high in comparison with other European countries.

The Thin Line Between Information and Advertising

In Switzerland, advertising of prescription medicinal products to the general public is prohibited (Article 31 para 1 TPA; Articles 3, 14 OMPA; Sections 21 et seq Pharma Code). This is why the often thin line between information and advertising is particularly key to the co-operation and communication strategies of pharmaceutical companies.

Advertising of medicinal products is defined as all information, marketing and incentivising measures aimed at promoting the prescription, administration, sale, usage or application of specific medicinal products (Article 2 lit a OMPA). All advertising must be in accordance with the information about the medicinal product, and may only promote the indications and possible applications most recently approved by the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic; Article 32 para 1 lit c TPA; Article 5 para 1, Article 16 para 1 OMPA; Sections 23.1 et seq Pharma Code).

An activity qualifies as pharmaceutical advertising if a multitude of people are influenced by certain measures or if incentives are created that are intended to lead these people to change their consumption behaviour. Even the mere provision of information on the possible uses of medicinal products constitutes advertising if it is intended and able to influence consumer behaviour. That said, not every piece of information that creates a link to a specific medicinal product always qualifies as advertising. The boundary between information and advertising cannot be determined in an abstract manner, but depends on the entire circumstances of the individual case (Federal Administrative Court C-5490/2015, 28.3.2017, at 6.4.1; C-2798/2020, 27.8.2021, at 6.1.6 et seq).

Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and stakeholders in the healthcare sector

Against this background, the focus in modern industry practice is on the following direct and indirect interactions between pharmaceutical companies and the various stakeholders in the healthcare sector:

• patient engagement;
• pre-approval information to healthcare professionals;
• scientific engagement with healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations;
• continuing medical education and training;
• post-approval studies; and
• media releases, investor presentations and securities disclosures.

In recent practice, there has been a general tendency towards fully integrated digital customer relationship solutions that span across channels and functions and include marketing, sales, medical, service, clinical and commercial. Current legislation and case law do not yet adequately reflect this trend.

Patient and pre-approval information

Patient engagement, such as disease awareness campaigns and similar patient communications that are limited to generic information about health, diseases, etc, is allowed in principle as long as it avoids any direct or indirect reference to individual medicinal products (Article 1 para 2 lit c OMPA).

Pre-approval information to healthcare professionals (eg, at a medical conference or through medical science liaisons) and the media is allowed in principle if the aim is to provide or obtain scientific input on unauthorised medicinal products or indications, thereby avoiding any promotional activities, and as long as it is clearly stated that the medicinal product, indications, possible application, dosage, pharmaceutical form or packaging have not yet received marketing authorisation from Swissmedic. To that end, care must be taken to ensure that the information is provided directly to healthcare professionals or to the medical department of a healthcare organisation, and not to its marketing or sales department or even to patients. The same applies in principle to so-called managed access programmes, such as for compassionate use (Article 9b para 1 TPA). In order to reflect this situation in a systematically correct way, the revised Pharma Code moved the rules on pre-approval information about medicinal products from the events section (Section 3), where they were traditionally placed, to the section on professional promotion of, and information about, medicinal products (Section 26).

Scientific engagement

In the field of scientific engagement – ie, scientific interactions between pharmaceutical companies and prescribers – the revised Pharma Code incorporates the previous recommendations in the context of distribution of advertising to healthcare professionals. Accordingly, professional promotion may only address those healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations that may reasonably be assumed to need, or be interested in, specific information in the performance of their activities. Digital communication, including through social media, must, whenever possible, be disseminated with the recipients’ prior consent (Section 29).

The revised Pharma Code also implements the requirements for continuing medical education and training which have been developed in the context of the EFPIA Code of Practice. While the revised Pharma Code recognises the importance of, and the need for, participation and contributions by the pharmaceutical industry in medical training and education, it maintains that:

• such activities may not count as promotion;
• the pharmaceutical industry is responsible for making its activities known; and
• the content must be fair, balanced and objective and allow conclusions about different theories and accepted opinions (Section 31).

Furthermore, the revised Pharma Code introduces certain clarifications in the context of post-approval studies using authorised medicinal products, which are again based on the EFPIA Code of Practice. These clarifications are of particular interest in the context of real-world evidence studies that seek to obtain clinical evidence regarding the usage and potential benefits or risks of a medicinal product, such as from product and disease registries, health records, patient-generated data – including in home-use settings and through apps – as well as insurance claims and billing activities. In order to ensure their integrity, such studies have to comply with recognised scientific standards and methods (Section 57). Equally, if professional promotion refers to investigations such as meta-analyses (combining the results of multiple scientific studies), pharmaco-economic studies (evaluating the cost and effects of therapeutic products) or field reports from practice, these must have been published in a recognised scientific medium (Section 25.7).

Challenging communication

Lastly, with growing competition among pharmaceutical companies in many areas, there has been a greater willingness to challenge hitherto unchallenged communication forms such as media releases and even investor presentations and securities disclosures, in particular in connection with marketing authorisations or reimbursement decisions. Such releases are allowed in principle, even if they relate to individual medicinal products, as long as they do not constitute advertising within the meaning of Article 2 lit a of the OMPA. Thereby, the precise limits where information ends and advertising starts can be difficult to establish. This delimitation can become even trickier where information obligations to investors under applicable stock exchange regulations have to be weighed against the prohibition under the therapeutic products law of advertising prescription drugs to the general public.

In this context, Swissmedic ruled that the information must be strictly limited to scientific, technical, organisational or financial aspects of a company’s activities that are of interest to investors, and that they must under no circumstances be aimed at promoting a medicinal product. In the context of any presentation of new medicinal products or substances in development, as well as of the future prospects and focal points of research and development activities, only the product name, the active ingredient (Denominatio Communis Internationalis) as well as the therapeutic area or field of application may be given. Information addressed to investors and financial analysts may contain details and forecasts regarding turnover, market share and sales volume, but no further statements on the therapeutic benefit of medicinal products (Swissmedic Guidelines for the advertising of medicinal products on the internet, 2007/09).

In addition to the restrictions on communication motivated by public health, conflicts between competitors under unfair competition law are also increasingly coming to the fore, as determined by the Pharma Code and the Federal Act on Unfair Competition.

Opportunities and Challenges of Digitalisation

There is no dedicated or comprehensive regulation for pharmaceutical advertising in the digital space in Switzerland. That said, the issues have been addressed in various regulatory and self-regulatory initiatives, most recently by the Pharma Codes Secretariat in its (non-binding) January 2021 Recommendations for using digital channels: professional promotion, continuing education and social media (the “Recommendations”).

First and foremost, digital advertising raises complex questions of cross-border application of law. While the provisions on pharmaceutical advertising of the TPA and the OMPA are generally considered to be enforced only for websites with Swiss domain names, the Recommendations recognise the particular nature of digital media that makes it difficult to limit its geographic sphere of influence. Accordingly, they adopt the general recommendation to structure such information or promotional measures to comply with the national regulations for the geographic area that is their primary target. They recognise the established practice that websites of country organisations focus on a national audience, while the websites of corporate group entities address a wider, more international audience and should at least comply with the national laws that apply at the corporations’ headquarters. At the same time, the recommendations stress that information disseminated digitally should be structured so as to ensure that it meets other implicit conditions, which could mean that such information must meet the requirements of several legal systems at the same time (Chapter A.1).

The Recommendations adopt the general principles of responsibility and transparency. With respect to the former, companies are responsible for all medicinal product information and advertising initiated by them, regardless of the channel that is used. This applies to links to other websites as well as to interactive communication platforms (such as blogs and social media) and electronic media activities of their employees (Chapter A.2; see also Swissmedic Guidelines for the advertising of medicinal products on the internet, 2007/09). The latter means that, when using digital channels, the owner or sponsor of the channel must always be identified by way of its physical and electronic address (Chapter A.3; see also Section 23.7 Pharma Code).

Electronic advertising

According to conventional understanding, electronic advertising, such as on the internet or via social media, without any access restriction, qualifies as advertising to the general public (Article 15 lit c OMPA). In 2019, the OMPA was amended to specify that, in order for professional advertising via electronic means to be compliant, its access must be restricted, by appropriate technical and password protections, to professionals authorised to dispense or apply medicinal products (Article 5a OMPA; Chapters A.4, B.2 Recommendations). The same applies to media releases and press kits in which direct or indirect reference is made to specific prescription medicinal products. These may only be accessible to media professionals and must be password-protected (Swissmedic Guidelines for the advertising of medicinal products on the internet, 2007/09).Swiss legal literature discusses the question of whether, in the age of electronic advertising, the distinction as to whether an advertisement is to be understood as public or professional should be based more on the content of the advertisement and its presentation than on access, including the distinction between push and pull information (dissenting: Federal Supreme Court 2A_20/2007, 9.5.2007, at 8). The new Recommendations address various digital communication channels in particular, such as email, websites, webinars, podcasts, blogs, apps and social media, and they propose solutions to specific problems that may arise with regard to their use (Chapter B).

Harmonisation of the Rules for Medical Devices

Medical devices have traditionally been regarded as less hazardous than medicinal products. This has led to inconsistencies in the regulation of advertising between these two categories of therapeutic products. However, the issue has been recognised, and attempts at greater harmonisation are under way.

While Article 56 of the TPA on transparency applies to therapeutic products in general, only prescription drugs, and not medical devices, are currently subject to Article 55 of the TPA and the respective provisions of the TPITO, despite the commonality of the underlying concern – ie, to ensure that treatment decisions are not influenced by economic incentives. While there were political discussions to amend Article 55 of the TPA and the TPITO to subject persons, and their employer organisations, that prescribe, dispense, use and purchase for this purpose medical devices to the same integrity requirements that apply to medicinal products, no such provisions have been passed to date. Until such time, potential sanctions are regulated in particular by the general bribery provisions of the CC (see Articles 322 ter et seq, 322 octies et seq), which in the meantime leads to different legal standards, especially in the area of benefits and advantages granted to healthcare organisations.

Advertising for medical devices

In the context of the new Medical Devices Ordinance (Article 69) and the new Ordinance on In Vitro Diagnostics (Article 62), provisions on advertising for medicinal products have been introduced.

Advertising for medical devices may also be subject to self-regulation, namely the Swiss Medtech Code of Ethical Business Practice of the industry association Swiss Medtech, which has been established in line with the Code of Ethical Business Practice of MedTech Europe. The purpose of the Ethics Code is to increase transparency and protect integrity in all interactions between members of Swiss Medtech and healthcare professionals, as well as healthcare organisations, in compliance with national and local laws, regulations or other professional codes of conduct. The comprehensively revised SAMS Guidelines on collaboration between the medical profession and industry now also address medical technology in greater depth.

Conclusion

In principle, as set out above, the trends and developments in pharmaceutical advertising in Switzerland are shaped by three basic factors:

• the recognition that co-operation with the various stakeholders – from patients to healthcare professionals and their respective organisations – is a key factor for innovation, effectiveness and efficiency, but also for potential abuse, in the healthcare sector;
• an increasing demand for integrity and transparency, and respective regulatory intervention; and
• data-driven approaches that are facilitated by new digital solutions and that, at the same time, require adequate regulatory responses.

Chambers and Partners, Practice Guides, Pharmaceutical Advertising 2026, Switzerland - Trends and Developments