Scoupy's 'Extra cashback €30' health-switch ad upheld for hiding the deal had ended

The Scoupy cashback app showed a screen reading "Zorgverzekeringen 28 aanbieders Extra cashback €30" — health-insurer comparison, 28 providers, an extra €30 cashback. A consumer switched to Nationale-Nederlanden's health insurance through the app on 30 December 2025, enticed by the cashback, and never received it.

Scoupy said the €30 offer applied only to insurers in an action period that had ended on 27 November 2025, and that Nationale-Nederlanden had not been in the participating list since 28 November. Yet the app still advertised the cashback without any reservation, and the '28 providers' figure was wrong — on 30 December only about 10–11 insurers actually qualified.

The RCC chairman agreed the '28 providers' claim was misleading: the number apparently referred to the whole action, not the situation at the time of the switch, and mis-stated the choice by more than double. Because the app's whole purpose is comparing insurers under a cashback action, the breadth of the offer is a relevant consumer advantage.

The chairman ruled the availability claim breached Article 8.2(b) of the Dutch Advertising Code and was therefore misleading under Article 7, recommending Scoupy not advertise in that manner again. The complaint against Nationale-Nederlanden was dismissed.

The RCC upheld the complaint: the '28 providers' figure doubled the real choice, misleading on availability under Article 8.2(b).

The €30 cashback was the hook that got the consumer to switch insurers — and Scoupy was still selling it after the action had closed

Claiming '28 aanbieders' when only 10–11 still qualified doubled the apparent choice, a relevant advantage for a comparison app

The number was technically the lifetime total but practically wrong at the moment of the decision, which is exactly the availability omission the RCC punishes

A cashback offer is a promise about the moment the consumer acts. Advertising '28 providers' after only 10 still qualify misleads on availability, not on quality.

The RCC chairman found Scoupy's '28 providers' claim misleading under Article 8(2)(b) and therefore Article 7 of the Dutch Advertising Code, recommending the app no longer advertise in that manner. The €30-cashback claim against Nationale-Nederlanden specifically was dismissed for lack of substantiation, and the separate complaint about the app's comparison functioning was left out of consideration as not being part of the advertisement.