Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2026

OKQ8's 'Sweden's largest charging network with nearly 1,000 points' ruled misleading

OKQ8 claimed Sweden's largest charging network with 'nearly 1,000' points; Tesla has 1,374 — OKQ8 was largest by places, not points.

OK-Q8 AB · 2026-06-15

What happened

On the front page of okq8.se, a text box opened with the headline 'Ladda supersnabbt' and read: 'Vi har Sveriges största laddnätverk med nära 1000 laddpunkter från norr till söder. Alla med smidig blippbetalning' — that it has Sweden's largest charging network with nearly 1,000 charging points from north to south.

A complainant said the claim was misleading, noting that Tesla Supercharger had 1,374 charging points.

OKQ8 argued the network was largest by number of places, not points, that the missing legal line 'by number of places' was a temporary publishing error during a period of system changes, and that its wider campaign had reached about 11.5 million contacts through correctly worded communication.

The Reklamombudsmannen judged each ad unit on its own. The average consumer would read nearly 1,000 points as meaning OKQ8 had the largest network in Sweden, but the network was largest only by places. Retroactive correction does not make the breach excusable, and the claim was misleading, breaching Article 5 of the ICC Code.

Why it happened

  • The qualifier 'by number of places' was the whole defence, and it was missing from the page
  • A headline that reads as 'most points' cannot be rescued by correct wording elsewhere in the campaign
  • A rival's bigger hard number sat waiting to falsify the boast
What it costRuling: misleading; Article 5embarrassing

The lesson

A superlative must hold under the metric the reader supplies. Claiming the largest network while counting places when the reader counts points invites a competitor's number to end the argument.

Aftermath

The Reklamombudsmannen found the OKQ8 homepage claim misleading, breaching Article 5 of the ICC Code. The company's defence rested on wording that was not present on the page the consumer saw.

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 →