Influencer’s Refund Claim Under Scrutiny After Discrepancy in Documentation
A dispute has emerged over the extent of refunds issued by social media influencer Sara Emilie Tandberg to followers who purchased a titanium cutting board following concerns raised about its marketing. While Tandberg initially claimed to have reimbursed approximately NOK 100,000, documentation reviewed to date suggests a significantly lower amount.
The controversy began in November when chemist Alexander Sandtorv publicly challenged several influencers who had promoted the titanium cutting boards, alleging misleading claims about their hygienic superiority over traditional wooden alternatives. According to Sandtorv, the marketing tactics employed relied on fear-mongering, suggesting consumers would become ill without the titanium product.
Sandtorv’s critique prompted some influencers, including Tandberg, to sever ties with the board’s manufacturer. Tandberg subsequently stated to Today’s Business (Dagens Næringsliv – DN) that she had proactively refunded around NOK 100,000 to customers who had used her discount code to purchase the board. “I physically sat down and tipped my followers back money. I spent at least 100,000 in total from my own account,” she reportedly told DN.
This claim sparked scrutiny from Sandtorv, who questioned the veracity of the reported amount. In a video posted on Instagram, Sandtorv explained he contacted DN to inquire about the documentation supporting Tandberg’s assertion.
According to the chemist, DN responded that they had reviewed documentation of payments but could not confirm if the total amount reached approximately NOK 100,000. Sandtorv then reached out directly to Tandberg, stating, “I want to praise Sara Emilie for both answering and sending me documentation.” Tandberg provided screenshots of numerous Vipps transfers, a popular Norwegian mobile payment system. However, when Sandtorv tallied the amounts depicted in the screenshots, the total amounted to just over NOK 14,000.
Dagens Næringsliv, Norway’s largest paper newspaper with a focus on economics and business, has acknowledged the discrepancy. News editor Marianne Johansen confirmed to TV 2 that the newspaper currently lacks documentation verifying a refund amount exceeding NOK 100,000. “Before publishing the video, we were sent documentation of a number of money transfers from Tandberg. In retrospect, questions have been raised about our fact-checking of the information that the sum was over 100,000. We take that feedback seriously, and we have asked for further documentation on this,” Johansen stated. She emphasized, however, that DN currently has no evidence to disprove Tandberg’s claim, and is awaiting additional documentation.
Tandberg, currently on a work trip in Bergen, expressed frustration with the timeline of events. “As I wrote to Sandtorv yesterday, I have to look at and find out all this over the weekend because of that. But he didn’t even give me 24 hours from when he contacted me, and chose to go ahead anyway, which is relatively reprehensible. This is a non-issue and DN has done its job,” she told TV 2 on Thursday.
Sandtorv refuted Tandberg’s assertion that he was asked to delay his inquiry. “It’s a lie, and I think that’s sad. In our conversation, I asked Tandberg about the documentation of all the missing money. Then I heard no more. We had a continuous conversation up to that point, then she was gone,” he stated to TV 2. Sandtorv provided a screenshot of their dialogue to TV 2, showing Tandberg indicated she was in a meeting but did not request additional time to gather documentation. The documentation also shows Tandberg ceased responding when Sandtorv requested further proof of the alleged refunds.
TV 2 has reached out to Tandberg for comment and documentation supporting her claims regarding the dialogue with Sandtorv and the total amount refunded, but has not yet received a response.
Sandtorv also voiced criticism of DN’s reporting. “DN is a newspaper many consider fair and proper. I myself have collaborated with good and skilled journalists at DN. Here I am reacting to the fact that the news editor will not be transparent about basic facts, and not least that the newspaper – from what I can see – does not fact-check its own matters well enough.” He noted that the news editor informed him the existing documentation was “sufficient,” despite representing only 14% of Tandberg’s claimed refund amount. “For DN, 14 percent is clearly good enough. It is disappointing,” Sandtorv added. He initially requested proof from DN on December 26th and from Tandberg on January 7th.
Johansen defended the newspaper’s work, stating that DN had answered all questions posed by Sandtorv.
Sandtorv underscored his broader concern regarding influencer marketing. “Because influencers are powerful people and a significant economic actor. An influencer can turn over many millions. And then we have to take them seriously.” However, he stopped short of accusing Tandberg of intentionally misrepresenting the refund amount. “I am waiting to give a final verdict. It is still possible that there is documentation for the remaining money, but that it has not been sent to me for various reasons.”
