After the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court ruled in Ørsted's favour in June 2026 in the former Elsam cases, the plaintiffs decided not to appeal.

True if court records or independent reports show that the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court ruled in Ørsted's favour in the former Elsam cases in or around June 2026, and the plaintiffs did not file an appeal by the appeal deadline (or publicly decided not to). Mostly true if this holds but the ruling date or a detail differs slightly. Mostly false if the ruling was in Ørsted's favour but an appeal was filed. False if the ruling was not in Ørsted's favour or no such ruling occurred. Ørsted's own announcement alone is insufficient; it must be corroborated by court records, the plaintiffs' statements or independent media.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 HCA Red Flag: Ørsted delivers the DKK 5.4 billion expected by the market (AI) - Inderes Inderes · 13 August 2026

   “On June 25, the Maritime and Commercial Court ruled in favor of Ørsted in the Elsam cases concerning electricity prices, and the approximately 1,100 plaintiffs have decided not to appeal.”

2. E2 Ørsted acquitted in billion-euro competition law damages case | Plesner Plesner · 26 June 2026 Own record

   “according to the DMCHC the claimants had failed to show that Elsam had charged excessive prices, and Ørsted was therefore acquitted already for that reason.”

E2 reports that the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court acquitted Ørsted in the Elsam damages case around June 25–26, 2026, and E1 matches that date. However, the only evidence that the plaintiffs decided not to appeal is E1, an AI-generated analyst comment that relies on Ørsted's own financial report. E2 predates the appeal question and does not address it. The criteria require corroboration beyond Ørsted's announcement through court records, plaintiffs' statements or independent reporting, and none of these is present for the no-appeal element.