LSI007 still happening after checking for duplicate EANs? Check archived items

Created by Emily Campbell, Modified on Fri, 11 Sep at 1:20 PM by Emily Campbell

This is a specific, confirmed cause of LSI007 — "More than one EAN has the code" that's easy to rule out incorrectly: you can search your Lightspeed catalogue, find only one item with the EAN in question, and still hit this error.

What's going on

Lightspeed's default inventory search excludes archived items. If an item was archived at some point but still carries the same EAN/product code as an active item, your search in the Lightspeed UI will only show the active one — but the check BRM's transfer relies on still sees both, and correctly reports a duplicate.

In other words: "I checked and there's only one" can be true of what you can see, and still not be the whole picture.

How to check

  1. In Lightspeed, search your inventory for the EAN from the error message.
  2. Explicitly include archived items in that search (there's an "Archived" filter/checkbox on the search screen — it's off by default).
  3. If a second, archived item turns up with the same EAN, that's your duplicate.

How to fix it

Confirmed working fix for this exact scenario: change the EAN to a longer, unique value — for example, padding a short generic code like 11111111111 (11 digits) out to 1111111111111 (13 digits) — in both Lightspeed and BRM. You don't need to reconnect the Lightspeed integration afterwards; just update the EAN in both places and retry the transfer.

This tends to affect generic/placeholder EANs (e.g. a "Rental Miscellaneous Item" or similar catch-all product) more than real barcodes, since those are the ones most likely to have been reused, archived, and recreated over time.

Still stuck?

Contact support with the EAN from the error message and whether you've already checked archived items — that tells us whether to look at the same cause or something else.

Was this article helpful?

That’s Great!

Thank you for your feedback

Sorry! We couldn't be helpful

Thank you for your feedback

Let us know how can we improve this article!

Select at least one of the reasons
CAPTCHA verification is required.

Feedback sent

We appreciate your effort and will try to fix the article