BYD used the ad to offer buyers up to €10,000 ($11,800) to those who bought a car and traded in a vehicle with a wet timing belt. That just happens to describe the timing system used in Stellantis’ PureTech engines, which run belts through a constant oil bath. These engines have been at the center of several recalls and warranty extensions linked to long-term reliability issues.
Well, I am not the IAP nor the original comment author. But as far as I understand the rules, every comparative advertisement, that is saying competitor X is bad instead of our product Y is good, has the same problem: X can easily say that the selected feature is just one random pick of a range of features. They may retaliate with some other fact. That may also be factual true, let’s say, BYD cars are build without union oversight.
And that starts a negative cycle. You can be in favour of that. It might be entertaining. But by the book that is not allowed to keep advertisement a little more civilized.
Whilst I’m not defending any advertisement at all, one can easily see what happens when it is allowed to talk about your enemies instead of what you provide. Just look at the logical end of this in form of the attack ads of the US political campaigns.
The question I was asking is, how is it defamation if it’s true. You seem to have wandered off onto a tangent of what constitutes ethical / civilised advertising.
More countries than not allow comparative advertising, and the world is not ending. Why use politics as an inaccurate example when the majority of countries actually practice it to some extent?
One thing can be true and still be unfair. A true thing can be misleading. The ruling exists to make the decision easier and make clearer what is allowed or not and what is good business practices:
“Truthfully and fair talking about your business opponent is hard, so let it be and talk about your own strength instead.”
We will see about that. ;-)