Bargain price

becomes a

pitfall.

29. July 2026

of

Clemens Pfitzer

Is an online retailer allowed to advertise a suggested retail price as a crossed-out price? When must the lowest price over the past 30 days be displayed, even if there hasn’t actually been a price reduction?

What’s it about?

An online retailer of plumbing supplies and home furnishings had displayed a strikethrough price of €952.00 next to the current price of €427.58 on its product page for a rivea trademark bathroom mirror. The display was accompanied by the text “SAVE 55% NOW” and “Savings of €524.42.” An asterisk after the crossed-out price referred to a footnote at the bottom of the page, which identified the crossed-out price as the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. Two weeks earlier, on July 1, 2025, the same retailer had in fact charged a lower price for the same mirror than the one advertised on July 15, 2025.

A qualified trade association, as defined by the Unfair Competition Act, took action against the retailer for this reason.

The dispute centered on two separate allegations. First, the advertisement did not make it sufficiently clear that the crossed-out price was not a price previously charged by the retailer itself, but merely the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. Second, the retailer failed to state the price it actually charged on July 1, 2025, as the reference price, as required by price disclosure laws when announcing price reductions.

The retailer defended himself by arguing that his advertisement contained a permissible reference to a suggested retail price, a claim that was also confirmed by a market research report he had commissioned. Since he had not advertised a price reduction, he was not required to specify a 30-day best price.

Decision of the Düsseldorf Regional Court

The Düsseldorf Regional Court ruled that Judgment of July 17, 2026 – Case No. 38 O 219/25 in favor of the trade association and ruled against the retailer accordingly.

In the Chamber’s view, a strikethrough price would typically and immediately—without further thought—lead consumers to believe that the retailer had reduced its own price. The court described the strikethrough price as the method that has been used for decades to announce a price reduction by the retailer itself and is familiar to all consumers. In the Chamber’s view, supplementary information such as “SAVE 55% IMMEDIATELY” and the stated savings amount would further reinforce this impression, because the concept of a savings implies that the customer would otherwise have had to pay the higher price. This is precisely not the case with a mere manufacturer’s suggested retail price, as it does not indicate an actual price charged but only a theoretical market price.

The Chamber acknowledged that it is possible for a strikethrough price to be used in forms of advertising other than the announcement of a price reduction—for example, in a simple comparison with the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. However, the consumer must be able to recognize this with sufficient clarity. A mere asterisk with a footnote explanation stating “Manufacturer’s suggested retail price” is not sufficient for this purpose. The eye-catching statements are readily understandable on their own, so consumers have no reason to look for and read an explanatory footnote.

Violation of the requirement to disclose the 30-day reference price

Because, according to the court’s assessment as described above, the advertisement would be perceived as an announcement of a price reduction, the retailer was required to state the lowest price charged within the 30 days prior to July 15, 2025. This obligation arises from the Price Indication Regulation, which implements a corresponding EU directive. According to the court’s findings, on July 1, 2025, the retailer had charged a lower price for the same mirror than the amount now presented as the crossed-out price. The retailer should have listed this lower price as the reference price, but failed to do so.

Regarding the scope of this obligation, the Chamber clarified that, in this case as well, the sole determining factor is the perception of the average consumer, not the actual economic circumstances. A retailer cannot therefore evade the obligation to state the reference price by claiming that, objectively speaking, it has not reduced the price if its advertising nevertheless gives the consumer the opposite impression.

No expert opinion on the prevailing view

The court considered the opinion based on public opinion polling submitted by the retailer to be irrelevant. The chamber declined to commission its own expert opinion and instead relied on its own expertise. In its view, determining the prevailing market perception is not a finding of fact, but rather an evaluative application of empirical knowledge, to which courts are generally not bound by motions for evidence.

Furthermore, the court considered the content of the expert report to be of little significance. It did not openly elicit the respondents’ spontaneous reactions but, through predetermined response options, deliberately directed their attention to the asterisk note. Despite these methodological weaknesses, the expert report actually tended to confirm rather than refute the association’s position. Only 87 percent of respondents recognized the asterisk as a reference to an explanation at all, only 84 percent noticed it at all, and just under 13 percent immediately understood the crossed-out price as the retailer’s previous price.

Practical Implications for Online Retailers

Several lessons can be drawn from the ruling regarding pricing in online retail. First, a mere asterisk note at the bottom of the page is generally not sufficient to transform a strikethrough price—which is visually presented as a price reduction—into a mere comparison with the MSRP. Second, with regard to the obligation to disclose the 30-day lowest price, it is irrelevant whether the retailer subjectively believed it was not advertising a price reduction. The only factor that matters is the impression created in the consumer’s mind.

Conclusion

We are happy to

advise you about

Competition law!

Contact form

Call now!