Right of reply – ‘Virologist in hot water for appearing in “misleading” advertising campaign’

Dear Sirs,

We are writing you as attorneys of Carl Zeiss Vision Portugal, S.A.
You have published the article concerning the decision of the Advertising Self-Regulation (ARP) on the Zeiss advertising campaign.
We hereby exercise the right of reply provided in articles 24.1 and 25 of Law 2/99.

Despite the fact that you may not have had access to the full content of the ARP’s decision, the same must be globally attended to for a competent journalistic treatment of the matter, and we highlight the following assessments contained in that decision:

“Considering the commercial communication at stake, this JE believes that it does not contain, contrary to what is alleged by the Respondent, a claim regarding guarantee of cure, merely presenting the innovative and proven features of the lenses, namely and here at stake, their antiviral properties, and does not present them abusively or frighteningly, as prescribed in article 46 j), reproduced herein. Likewise, we also do not believe that the joint recommendations prepared by the Directorate-General of Consumers and ARP that urge not to falsely claim that the good or service can cure or help prevent and cure diseases, namely covid-19, were put in question. In fact, no claim is made to allege cure or treatment for covid-19. The same can be said of article 43 (3) a) and b), the commercial communication having no non-conforming or exaggerated information.”

In this sense, we emphasize that the title and the article itself mislead the reader by not making mention to any of the parts above of the ARP decision, giving the erroneous and damaging impression for Zeiss that a product was advertised and did not have the qualities that were advertised.

Yours sincerely,
Albuquerque & Almeida Advogados