The core of the conflict revolves around how to define the starting point of a price reduction. The Consumer Ombudsman considered that Inet had presented a misleading campaign on May 8, 2025. On the website, a computer was offered for SEK 21,490, with a stated discount of 23 percent compared to a crossed-out price of SEK 27,990. However, the authority's check showed that the item had been sold for the lower amount already the day before, which is why they believed the reference price was incorrect.
For Inet, this supervision resulted in a powerful decision from the authority. The Consumer Ombudsman issued an injunction requiring the company to state correct prices and prohibiting them from presenting the price as a sale when it was not. The decision was associated with a penalty of SEK 100,000.
The e-tailer, for its part, pointed out that the computer in question had been sold for the higher amount since the end of February. The company's plan was to launch a campaign on May 6, but the system did not work as it should.
Due to a pure handling error, the "Show as regular price" function was unintentionally activated, writes Inet in its appeal.
This mistake in the internal system meant that the new, lower amount was displayed as the item's regular price on both May 6 and 7, completely without the strike-through of the previous price of SEK 27,990 required for it to appear as a sale. This practically meant that the product was actually sold at the cheaper price – for SEK 21,490 – during these two days, but without being marketed as a sale or campaign.
It was not until May 8 that the company corrected the settings so that the correct reference price finally appeared to customers, whereupon it became clear to visitors that the price was the result of a price reduction.
This scenario paints a challenge faced by many e-tailers. Pricing systems are complex, and the question is whether the law allows for any leeway for errors in technical handling. The court's analysis shows that the specific appearance of the website on a single day during a campaign is subordinate to the time when the reduction actually began.
The Court's Interpretation Provides Clarity For The Industry
The Patent and Market Court made a completely different legal assessment than the application that the Consumer Ombudsman had based its decision on. The court establishes that the period of thirty days should be counted backwards in time from exactly the time when the item actually received a lower price. The court emphasizes that the period refers to the time immediately before the date when the price reduction began.
No new period therefore begins to run each day that the lower price continues to apply, writes the Patent and Market Court in its reasoning.
This means that the comparison period is not moved forward for each day that the sale continues. The court further emphasizes in its minutes regarding the incorrect display on the website:
It is irrelevant that the price was not stated to be the result of a price reduction.
This demarcation is crucial. The Consumer Ombudsman had isolated May 8 and looked at the nearest time before this date. But the court states that since the actual reduction took place on May 6, it was the price levels before this date that constitute the correct frame of reference.
The lowest price that the company had applied during the thirty days before May 6 was SEK 27,990. Thus, the information displayed on May 8 was deemed to be in accordance with the price information law and was therefore not misleading.
The Consequences For E-commerce
What does this mean in a broader perspective? The court case gives e-tailers a clearer set of rules to relate to. A technical problem that for a couple of days makes a campaign price look like a regular price does not automatically mean that the rest of the campaign is classified as unfair, as long as the reference price from before the campaign start is correct.
The ruling also puts pressure on the Consumer Ombudsman and their working methods. The authority may need to review how they carry out their price observations. Making snapshots on specific days without taking into account when a price change was actually implemented in the e-tailer's system has now proven to be an unsustainable legal path.
The Final Word Has Not Been Said
With the district court's decision, the authority's injunction was lifted. The court also decided that the state should compensate the company for their legal costs with SEK 30,000.
A review of the case history at the Consumer Agency shows, however, that the case has not yet been finally settled.
On April 1, 2026, an appeal was filed by the Consumer Ombudsman in the case. The appeal is now directed to the next instance, which is the Patent and Market Court of Appeal.
However, for the case to be tried again at all, the court must issue a so-called permission to appeal. If granted, their assessment will finally establish the precedent for how future price campaigns should be handled online. If permission to appeal is not granted, the district court's ruling – and the victory for the e-tailer – will stand.