{
  "version": 1,
  "checkedDate": "2026-11-02",
  "authority": "Forbrugerklagenævnet",
  "selection": "purposive_nonrepresentative",
  "ownCustomerCases": false,
  "records": [
    {
      "id": "grafikkort",
      "caseReference": "23/06160",
      "decisionDate": "2025-12-17",
      "purchaseDate": "2022-12-28",
      "sourceUrl": "https://fkn.naevneneshus.dk/media/documents/Afg%C3%B8relse_af_den_17._december_2025.pdf",
      "observations": {
        "da": {
          "title": "Grafikkort: mistanke om en modelfejl",
          "question": "Gav omtale af en mulig modelfejl ret til en gratis undersøgelse af køberens kort?",
          "evidence": "Køberen havde ikke testet, om hans eget kort havde den omtalte fejl.",
          "outcome": "Kravet om gratis undersøgelse blev afvist.",
          "limit": "Nævnet afgjorde ikke, at kortet var fejlfrit, eller at alle undersøgelsesgebyrer er lovlige.",
          "nextStep": "Beskriv dine egne symptomer. Omtale af andre eksemplarer erstatter ikke observationer af din vare."
        },
        "en": {
          "title": "Graphics card: suspicion about a model",
          "question": "Did reports of a possible model-wide fault entitle the buyer to a free examination?",
          "evidence": "The buyer had not tested whether his own card had the reported fault.",
          "outcome": "The request for a free examination was rejected.",
          "limit": "The board did not establish that the card was fault-free or that every examination fee is lawful.",
          "nextStep": "Describe your own symptoms. Reports about other units do not replace observations of your item."
        }
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "airfryer",
      "caseReference": "23/13586",
      "decisionDate": "2026-06-29",
      "purchaseDate": "2023-10-04",
      "sourceUrl": "https://fkn.naevneneshus.dk/afgoerelse/441e1567-1f5f-4ff4-ac6d-78b3eb6b9959",
      "observations": {
        "da": {
          "title": "Airfryer: varme og brugsoplysninger",
          "question": "Var apparatet mangelfuldt, når varmen kunne skade køkkenbordet, og oplysninger om brugen var utilstrækkelige?",
          "evidence": "Nævnet lagde vægt på sagkyndige vurderinger af varme og skade samt utilstrækkelige oplysninger til køberen.",
          "outcome": "Købet blev ophævet. Nævnet behandlede også et særskilt erstatningskrav.",
          "limit": "Det betyder ikke, at enhver varmeskade giver ret til tilbagebetaling. Erstatning for andre skader er et særskilt spørgsmål.",
          "nextStep": "Gem den vejledning, der fulgte med. Skeln mellem dine observationer og en eventuel faglig undersøgelse."
        },
        "en": {
          "title": "Air fryer: heat and use information",
          "question": "Was the appliance non-conforming because its heat could damage a worktop and supplied use information was inadequate?",
          "evidence": "The board considered expert assessments of heat and damage, together with inadequate information supplied to the buyer.",
          "outcome": "The purchase was cancelled. A separate damages claim was also considered.",
          "limit": "This does not mean every heat-damage case warrants a refund. Compensation for other damage is a separate issue.",
          "nextStep": "Keep the supplied instructions. Distinguish your observations from any expert examination."
        }
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "elladcykel",
      "caseReference": "25/06324",
      "decisionDate": "2026-05-22",
      "purchaseDate": "2024-03-08",
      "sourceUrl": "https://fkn.naevneneshus.dk/afgoerelse/c475bddf-e0ec-4dc0-ad18-7e70208313df",
      "observations": {
        "da": {
          "title": "El-ladcykel: reparation efter krav om ophævelse",
          "question": "Kunne køberen fastholde ophævelse efter en lang reparation, som han fortsat bad butikken færdiggøre?",
          "evidence": "Reparationen var gennemført. Nævnet vurderede køberens fortsatte anmodninger om reparation og hans indsigelse mod, at arbejdet blev standset, samlet.",
          "outcome": "Ophævelse blev afvist. Nævnet anså i denne sag kundens adfærd for et frafald af ophævelseskravet.",
          "limit": "Nævnet afgjorde ikke, at reparationstiden var rimelig. Afgørelsen betyder ikke, at enhver statusforespørgsel frafalder et krav om ophævelse.",
          "nextStep": "Gem hele korrespondancen. Gør det tydeligt, om du beder om status, fortsat reparation eller ophævelse."
        },
        "en": {
          "title": "Cargo e-bike: repair after a cancellation demand",
          "question": "Could the buyer maintain cancellation after a lengthy repair that he continued asking the shop to complete?",
          "evidence": "Repair had been completed. The board considered together the buyer’s continued repair requests and his objection to the work being stopped.",
          "outcome": "Cancellation was refused. In this case, the board interpreted the buyer’s conduct as withdrawing that demand.",
          "limit": "The board did not decide that the repair time was reasonable. The decision does not mean every status enquiry waives a cancellation demand.",
          "nextStep": "Keep the full correspondence. Make it clear whether you are asking for status, continued repair or cancellation."
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}