A company ran a commercial campaign in which it presented its competitors in a grotesque manner by way of a parody and extremism and was sued for that (The "Shuka" campaign of Direct Insurance presenting insurance agents in a ridiculous manner).
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the company against the cease and desist orders issued by the District Court and the monetary orders. Even though the campaign presented the competitors grotesquely by way of parody and extremism, this does not constitute a false description as defined in the Commercial Torts law or misrepresentation, as it represents a general opinion in a humorous and amusing manner and there is no apprehension that the parody message conveyed in this campaign will be taken seriously by the consumer. Additionally, this does not constitute defamation because of a specific statutory provision setting that no cause of action will be established in case of publication against a general public and not a specific person. The campaign is also protected under the commercial freedom of expression in the framework of a business competition between the parties and there is no reason to prevent its publication.