Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Marketing & Brand · Marketing decision · 2022–2024

Norlys sold 15% insurance discounts that non-customers could get at 12%

The Danish utility exaggerated the extra value of partner insurance discounts on its website, then paid a DKK 3M fine.

Norlys Energi A/S · 2024-09-05

What happened

From June 2022 to May 2023, Danish energy company Norlys advertised insurance discounts of 11% and 15% on its website. The offer was presented as a benefit for electricity customers who bundled policies with Norlys's insurance partner.

The partner was already offering consumers discounts of 8% and 12% for bundling the same insurance without requiring a Norlys electricity account. The advertised customer benefit was therefore only three percentage points, not the full discount displayed.

The Danish Consumer Ombudsman found the message misleading because it exaggerated the extra value of being a Norlys customer and could influence consumers' financial decisions in two complex markets: energy and insurance.

The regulator reported Norlys to police in 2024. Norlys concluded the case by accepting a DKK 3 million fine under Denmark's turnover-based penalty model for marketing violations.

Why it happened

  • The campaign displayed the total partner discount instead of isolating the smaller benefit created by the Norlys relationship
  • A bundled offer made two complex products look easier to compare while withholding the non-customer baseline
  • The discount claim stayed on the website for nearly a year without a review that tested the advertised advantage
  • The partnership message treated access to an existing market discount as an exclusive customer benefit
What it costDKK 3M finecostly

The lesson

A partnership discount is only as valuable as its advantage over the public offer — show the baseline, not just the biggest percentage.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →