The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2026
Praktikertjänst's 'Sweden's most satisfied patients' ad — the asterisk named the parent
Bjärreds vårdcentral's ad said 'register with Sweden's most satisfied patients' — the asterisk only proved the Praktikertjänst cooperative, not the clinic.
Praktikertjänst Bjärreds vårdcentral · 2026-06-16
What happened
Praktikertjänst Bjärreds vårdcentral ran an ad on dn.se with a yellow speech bubble reading 'Together we make a difference in practice', followed by 'Register at the healthcare center with Sweden's most satisfied patients*'.
A smaller footnote explained that Bjärreds Vårdcentral is part of Praktikertjänst, which per SKR and Svenskt Kvalitetsindex has had Sweden's most satisfied patients for ten years. The advertiser's logo sat at the bottom.
A complainant said the ad was misleading: the large-type claim implied this specific centre had Sweden's most satisfied patients, while the asterisk only supported satisfaction for the Praktikertjänst cooperative as a whole, not Bjärreds.
Praktikertjänst argued the ad was truthful, that the asterisk signalled the claim must be read with the footnote, and that the footnote clearly attributed the record to the cooperative. The Opinionsnämnd disagreed, finding an average consumer would read the prominent claim with the 'Bjärreds vårdcentral' sender as meaning the advertiser itself had Sweden's most satisfied patients, which was not substantiated. The asterisk did not neutralise it. The ad breached Article 5 of the ICC Code, unanimously.
Why it happened
- A superlative framed against the sender is read as the sender's own, however the footnote is worded
- The asterisk pointed at the parent cooperative's decade-long record, not the clinic that signed the ad
- Prominence won: the big claim carried the message and the small print could not undo it
The lesson
A superlative pinned to the sender is read as the sender's own. An asterisk that points at the parent company's record does not save a headline that names the clinic.
Aftermath
The Opinionsnämnd unanimously found the Bjärreds vårdcentral ad misleading under Article 5 of the ICC Code. The prominent satisfaction claim was read as applying to the clinic itself, and the footnote attributing the record to the Praktikertjänst cooperative did not correct that impression.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
TV4 trailer for 'From' hid that the show needed a paid tier
Skeppshult's 'only remaining Scandinavian cast-iron foundry' claim ruled misleading
OKQ8's 'Sweden's largest charging network with nearly 1,000 points' ruled misleading
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.