Forbrugerombudsmanden's "Ja Tak"-Offer Ruling: What It Means for Brand and Influencer Social Media Promotions

What is a "ja tak" offer, and what did Forbrugerombudsmanden say?

A "ja tak" ("yes please") offer is a marketing mechanic where a business posts a product at a specific price on social media and asks followers to comment "ja tak" to "unlock" or reserve that price. The format is most common among Danish grocery retailers, but the underlying mechanic — comment to gain access to an offer — is the same whether it runs from a retailer's own account or from an influencer posting on a brand's behalf.

On 24 August 2026, Forbrugerombudsmanden (Torben Jensen) published a statement titled "Der skal være reelle besparelser bag 'Ja tak-tilbud'" ("There must be genuine savings behind 'Ja tak' offers"). The finding: this form of marketing can, in some cases, be misleading, because consumers rush to comment believing they are securing a saving or exclusive access — when the same offer is in fact available to everyone, whether or not they comment.

The two examples Forbrugerombudsmanden cited

The statement cites concrete examples from the grocery sector. In the most-quoted case, a supermarket chain offered three pork tenderloin fillets for 99.95 kr. to anyone who commented "Ja tak 1 stk." on a social media post. The problem: the identical price was running simultaneously in the chain's own printed sales flyer for several days — meaning any customer could buy the product at the same low price without ever commenting. In the ombudsman's own framing, there was nothing genuine to save by writing "ja tak."

Forbrugerombudsmand Torben Jensen states: "Tilbud skal være gennemsigtige og overskuelige for forbrugerne" ("Offers must be transparent and clear to consumers"), and that there naturally has to be a real saving on offer. The recommendation to businesses is straightforward: only use this marketing approach if consumers can genuinely obtain the advertised price only by responding to that specific post.

The legal basis: four provisions, one combined assessment

The statement cites four specific provisions of Markedsføringsloven (the Danish Marketing Practices Act). They reinforce each other rather than acting as alternatives — a single "ja tak" campaign can be caught by more than one at once.

Worth noting: none of the four provisions bans the comment mechanic itself. What makes it unlawful is the combination of the mechanic with a price that isn't genuinely different from what every other customer can already get.

How this differs from ad disclosure and from the giveaway rules

This ruling raises a third, separate question alongside two questions the Academy already covers in depth. It's important not to conflate them, because each requires a different fix.

A campaign can easily pass one test and fail another. A "ja tak" post can be correctly disclosed as a paid partnership and still be misleading if the price isn't genuinely exclusive to commenters. Equally, a "ja tak" offer can be a real, genuine saving and still lack proper ad disclosure if an influencer runs the post without marking it as advertising.

What does this actually mean for influencer campaigns?

To be precise: the concrete cases Forbrugerombudsmanden has cited in the statement are grocery chains' own posts on their own social media accounts — not influencer collaborations. As far as this research found, there is not yet a published case where Forbrugerombudsmanden has specifically assessed a "ja tak" offer posted by an influencer on a brand's behalf.

That doesn't change the legal assessment. Markedsføringsloven §§ 5, 6, 8 and 9 govern the commercial practice, not who specifically hits "post." When a brand uses an influencer to run a "comment ja tak for the offer" campaign — for example around a product launch or a time-limited collaboration offer — exactly the same test applies: is the price the follower "unlocks" by commenting genuinely different from what any other customer can get? If not, the misleading-marketing risk is the same whether the sender is the chain's own account or an influencer's profile.

Decision framework: structuring a lawful "comment for the offer" campaign

IF the price can only be obtained by commenting "ja tak" (no other channel — store, flyer or webshop — offers the same price in the same period) → the mechanic is lawful, provided it's also correctly disclosed as an ad if an influencer is involved.

IF the same price is already running elsewhere at the same time (flyer, webshop, in-store) → drop the "ja tak" mechanic, or make it clear in the post that the price also applies without commenting. Hiding that is exactly what § 6(1) prohibits.

IF you're unsure whether the offer is genuinely limited → assume you'll need to document it to Forbrugerombudsmanden if someone complains. Write down internally why the price is exclusive to the comment thread before the campaign goes live.

IF an influencer is posting the campaign → write the exact price and exclusivity condition into the brief, not just "ask people to comment ja tak" — see what to put in an influencer contract for how a specific term like this generally belongs in the agreement.

Checklist before a "ja tak" campaign goes live

• Is the price actually only available via the comment thread? Check it isn't simultaneously running in a flyer, webshop or in-store.
• Is the restriction documented internally? Write down why and how the price is exclusive before the campaign starts.
• Is the post correctly disclosed as an ad if an influencer or paid collaboration is involved? See influencer marketing disclosure rules — it's a separate requirement on top of the offer's truthfulness.
• Is this actually a contest rather than a standing offer? If access to the product is decided by a draw or selection rather than "everyone who comments correctly gets it," the prize-tax and spam-ban rules apply instead — see the rules for giveaways and contests.
• Is the requirement written into the influencer's brief, including the exact wording of what makes the offer exclusive?

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, this kind of mistake rarely comes from bad intent — it happens because the team planning the printed flyer and the team planning the social campaign never confirm they're advertising the same price through two channels at once. Our recommendation is to treat "is this price genuinely exclusive to this channel?" as a standing check whenever a comment-for-offer mechanic is considered — regardless of whether the sender is the brand's own account or an influencer posting on the brand's behalf. It's the same discipline we already recommend for ad disclosure: write the exact condition down before the campaign goes live, rather than trusting it gets handled correctly in the moment.

FAQ

Does the ruling only apply to grocery stores, or to influencer campaigns too?

The concrete cases Forbrugerombudsmanden has cited are grocery chains' own posts. The legal assessment (Markedsføringsloven §§ 5, 6, 8 and 9) isn't sender-specific, though — it applies to the commercial practice, whether it's the chain's own account or an influencer posting the campaign on a brand's behalf.

Is it illegal to ask followers to comment "ja tak" for an offer?

No, not on its own. It becomes a problem if the price unlocked by commenting is genuinely the same as what any other consumer can get without commenting.

What's the difference between this and the ordinary ad disclosure rules?

Ad disclosure is about whether followers know the post is advertising. This ruling is about something else: whether the offer itself, that you comment to get, is true. A post can be correctly disclosed as an ad and still mislead about the offer's exclusivity — those are two separate requirements that both have to be met.

Is a "ja tak" campaign the same as a giveaway or contest?

No. A giveaway typically decides a winner by draw or judging among a limited number of winners, which triggers the prize-tax rules and the spam ban on requiring tagging. A "ja tak" offer, in principle, gives the product to everyone who comments correctly — it's a price-and-exclusivity claim, not a contest.

What should we do if we already have a "ja tak" campaign running?

Check immediately whether the advertised price is also available through other channels during the same period. If it is, either stop the mechanic or update the post to make clear the price isn't exclusive to the comment thread.

Can Forbrugerombudsmanden fine a business for this?

The 24 August 2026 statement is an assessment and a recommendation to the industry, not a published decision against a named business. Violations of Markedsføringsloven can generally be sanctioned, but this article is based solely on what Forbrugerombudsmanden has actually published as of writing.

Is a paid lottery ticket the same misleading-offer question as a "ja tak" post?

No — it's a different rulebook entirely. This ruling is about whether a comment-to-unlock price is genuinely a saving. Whether a competition needs a gambling permit because entrants pay purely for a chance to win is a separate question, covered in giveaway, purchase-required contest or lottery: Denmark's rules for a prize draw.