Amazon
Discount advertising
unlawful.
Amazon
Discount advertising
unlawful.
from
Amazon advertises discounts compared to the RRP and a medium sales price. But is this even permissible? The consumer advice center and the Munich Regional Court say no.
Price reduction on Amazon
One retailer advertised price reductions on Amazon during the “Prime Deal Days” without indicating the lowest total price in the last 30 days before the discount campaign. Instead, some of the percentage price reductions and crossed-out prices referred to the manufacturer’s recommended retail price (RRP) or to a “median retail price” that customers had previously paid on the platform.
The consumer association Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e.V. considered this advertising practice to be anti-competitive, as it gave consumers a false impression. They would assume that the crossed-out prices, percentage reductions and announced discounts were actual reductions compared to the online retailer’s own previously requested price. If consumers knew that the reductions referred to RRP or average prices, they would be more critical of price advertising and attach less importance to it.
The online retailer defended itself by arguing that the scope of application of the relevant Price Indication Ordinance did not apply, as this only concerned the reduction of its own previously requested price and not a transparent price comparison with the RRP. It had complied with the requirements for the transparency of a price comparison with a crossed-out RRP. The “instead” price is an arithmetically calculated average sales price of the last 90 days and offers a valuable orientation aid.
The court’s assessment: Misleading discount advertising
Price Indication Regulation (PangV)The Regional Court of Munich I upheld the action brought by the consumer advice center with Judgment of 14.07.2025 – Ref. 4 HK O 13950/24 in its entirety. The court found that all of the challenged advertising measures violated the Price Indication Ordinance.
The decisive factor for the assessment is the perception of a normally informed, reasonable and reasonably attentive average consumer. The aim is to ensure a high level of consumer protection and to guarantee clear information on prices and discounts.
The court found that the online retailer’s price advertisements were to be regarded as a “price reduction” within the meaning of the regulation, as they gave the impression of such a reduction. The price comparison with crossed-out reference prices is a typical means of price reduction advertising, which is regularly perceived by the average consumer as an announcement of a price reduction.
Particularly in the context of “Prime Deal Days”, consumers expect online retailers to offer particularly low prices compared to the prices previously demanded. The indication of “-19%” in red next to the current price reinforces this expectation. The court did not consider this to be a mere comparison of the RRP with the requested price (third-party price comparison), but rather a combination of third-party price comparison and own price reduction advertising. In such cases, the online retailer is obliged to state the lowest total price that it has applied within the last 30 days before the price reduction.
This is the only way to ensure that the consumer is clearly informed about the prices and the methods used to calculate the published discount in accordance with ECJ case law.
The so-called “average sales price” for other products, which was only accessible via a “mouse-over effect”, was also not the reference price specified in the Price Indication Regulation and required by case law. The addition “UVP” or the information behind the “i” symbol could not steer consumer perception in a different direction, as many consumers would not perceive this addition or it would not make it sufficiently clear that it was not a simultaneous price reduction.
Risks for retailers on Amazon
The ruling has far-reaching consequences, not only for the online retailer concerned, but also for all other retailers who sell their products via the Amazon platform. As Amazon specifies the display of prices, Marketplace retailers are generally subject to these specifications. If there is an option to hide the display of these strike prices and discounts, retailers should make use of it. Otherwise, discount advertising can lead to retailers being subject to cease and desist letters under competition law, even though they are not responsible for the incorrect display. It remains to be seen whether and how Amazon will react to this ruling.
Conclusion
The ruling by the Regional Court of Munich I underlines the importance of price transparency in online retail. Advertising with discount information and price drop comparisons must be clear and unambiguous in order to avoid misleading practices and not deceive consumers. Competition law requires that the lowest price of the last 30 days be given as a reference for price reductions in order to guarantee fair market communication.
Online retailers must ensure that their offers are legally compliant, even if the strike prices and savings are provided by a platform.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
