The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2026
Ljus-Butiken's 'from 2,090 kr' lamp deal paired a crossed-out price from a different size
Ljus-Butiken offered a lamp 'from 2,090 kr' beside a crossed-out 3,990 kr, but the low price was the smallest size and the high the largest.
Postordergruppen i Göteborg AB · 2026-05-11
What happened
Ceiling lamp retailer Ljus-Butiken.se ran a campaign for its 'Sailing' taklampa showing a price 'from 2,090 kr' next to a crossed-out '3,990 kr'.
The lower price applied only to the smallest size of the lamp (60 cm), while the crossed-out price referred to the largest, most expensive model.
The complaints concerned whether the combination of the product image and the two prices misled consumers into thinking the prices referred to the same product.
The Reklamombudsmannen found the combination was likely to mislead the average consumer into believing the prices concerned the same product. The advertiser had removed the ad on 8 April 2026, but a retroactive correction does not excuse the violation. The ad was misleading, breaching Article 5 of the ICC Code.
Why it happened
- A 'from' price and a crossed-out price side by side read as one product marked down, not two
- The smallest and largest sizes sharing a single picturelet the maths stay hidden
- Removing the ad after the fact could not undo the impression already given
The lesson
A saving is only honest if both prices belong to the same thing. Pairing a small-size 'from' price with a large-size crossed-out price makes the deal look bigger than it is.
Aftermath
The Reklamombudsmannen found the lamp ad misleading, breaching Article 5 of the ICC Code. Ljus-Butiken had pulled the ad in April, but the correction came too late to excuse it.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Skeppshult's 'only remaining Scandinavian cast-iron foundry' claim ruled misleading
Nordic Nest influencer's 'Adlink lampa på rea' link was not an ad label
Kockums' influencer pan video carried no ad marking
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.