Facts
The appellant, a person responsible for advertising at A. AG, commissioned the writing of various articles on the atopic dermatitis medication "B." for the lay press. The articles were approved by the appellant and published in magazines and newspapers, with the brand name of the prescription drug being explicitly mentioned. The lower court convicted the appellant of an intentional violation of the prohibition on direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs under Art. 32 para. 2 lit. a TPA in conjunction with Art. 14 ADVA and Art. 87 para. 1 lit. b TPA.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for conditional intent. It stated that the prohibition on direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs serves the public interest of health protection, in order to prevent patients from putting pressure on doctors to prescribe the advertised product, or for lay people to take such medications independently. Given the appellant's expertise, the objectively clear advertising effect of the articles, the very high probability…