{
  "id": 14143089,
  "title": "– De oppstiller stråmenn",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/13/de-oppstiller-stramenn",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-10-13T06:46:08.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "E24 Norway",
    "slug": "e24-norway",
    "url": "https://e24.no/naeringsliv/i/Ab03A5/de-oppstiller-straamenn"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "This week marks the beginning of a two-month-long examination of the so-called price gouging case at the Gulating Court. Norgesgruppen, Coop, and Rema 1000 are seeking to overturn the fees imposed by the Competition Authority, totaling 4.9 billion kroner. They argue that their cooperation to open up price checks to each other did not harm competition. Evidence presented by the court includes falling prices during the period. Lisa-Mari Moen Jünge leads the case for the Government Attorney's Office. She dismisses the argument that the checks \"spawned\" what she calls \"fishing trips.\" Jünge explains that while they acknowledge competitors competed with each other, it doesn't mean they stopped competing altogether. The state claims the cooperation negatively impacted competition. However, Jünge argues that the Ministry of Justice can still prove the competition was harmed, possibly through internal emails showing that cooperation made cutting prices more tempting and easier to increase. Some of their evidence will show how quickly prices dropped after a competitor responded. Others will include emails with statements like \"let's test a higher price,\" to see if others followed suit. Jünge points out that companies also claim they would have checked each other's prices even without the agreement. The question remains: how would you prove the alternative would be better? Jünge makes a point in court about the rationale behind the agreement. \"Companies had to enter into this cooperation. Why else cooperate with their closest competitors?\" Norgesgruppen and the other companies' lawyers will use the next two weeks to present evidence that competition was not harmed. Kaare Shetelig, the lawyer representing Norgesgruppen, says the state's argument that the agreement could have made competition even worse is flawed. Jünge emphasizes that the state hasn't presented a strong case. Shetelig points out two main issues: the content of the cooperation and whether there was a common will to conduct extensive and frequent price checks. The companies only agreed on rules for accessing each other's stores. Shetelig also argues that even if the cooperation is valid, the evidence doesn't show a discriminatory competitive effect. When looking at the evidence, it doesn't suggest companies were allowed to engage in price gouging or raise prices they wouldn't have otherwise.",
  "summary": "Staten avviser dagligvarekjedenes argumentasjon i milliardsaken: – På gale premisser.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}