Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
84 73 93 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
46 27 65 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
60 40 79
All types combined: 70 (likely 61 to 78, medium confidence), from 29 claims: 16 factual claims, 7 predictions, 6 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Ørsted's claims
26 claims
“Subsequently, the plaintiffs have decided not to appeal the ruling.”
Ørsted 13 August 2026 Ørsted continues its strategic progress, delivers solid operational performance, and is on track to deliver on its 2026 financial guidance (Ørsted)
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.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
What would count as true or false
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.
Evidence
- 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.”
- 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.”
Reasoning
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.
Cite this claim
Ørsted, “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.” (said 13 August 2026). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_b71aa1800d51, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_b71aa1800d51
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Ørsted? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.