never demanded
RRP is
misleading.
never demanded
RRP is
misleading.
from
Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart prohibits Lidl advertising with RRP. Advertising with a non-binding price recommendation is not permitted if the recommendation was not determined on the basis of a serious calculation.
Recommended retail price
In principle, it is permissible to refer to a manufacturer’s recommended retail price. However, the corresponding advertising must not suggest a price saving that does not actually exist. Otherwise – as in the case decided by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart – it is misleading.
Lidl advertised an exercise bike online with a discount of over 50 percent and compared its own price with the manufacturer’s recommended retail price. In fact, the recommended retail price or a similar price was never charged. A supplier affiliated with the manufacturer of the exercise bike had even undercut the price offered by Lidl. An action for injunctive relief brought by the Baden-Württemberg Consumer Advice Center was initially unsuccessful before the Heilbronn Regional Court.
Infobox
Was
ist
die UVP?
Die unverbindliche Preisempfehlung (UVP) ist eine Preisangabe des Herstellers oder Großhändlers, die als Orientierung für den Endverkaufspreis eines Produktes dient. Sie ist rechtlich nicht bindend, d.h. der Handel ist nicht verpflichtet, sich an diesen Preis zu halten.
Ziel der UVP ist es, dem Handel und den Verbrauchern eine Vorstellung vom empfohlenen Marktpreis zu vermitteln. Häufig wird die UVP im Rahmen von Preisvergleichen oder Rabattaktionen verwendet, um die Ersparnis zu verdeutlichen. Aus wettbewerbsrechtlicher Sicht ist jedoch darauf zu achten, dass die UVP nicht irreführend verwendet wird, insbesondere wenn sie veraltet oder realitätsfern ist.
Advertising with RRP inadmissible
Following an appeal by the consumer association, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart upheld the claim in its ruling of March 6, 2025 – 2 U 142/23 and prohibited the advertising with reference to the recommended retail price.
A permanent undercutting of the recommended retail price by the behavior attributable to the manufacturer is contrary to a serious calculation of the recommended retail price.
In this case, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart considered the product to be misleading because the average consumer would assume that the abbreviation UVP stands for “recommended retail price” from the manufacturer or the company under whose responsibility the product is manufactured or marketed. At the time of the reference, however, the recommended price could no longer be considered as the consumer price because the manufacturer or its affiliated company demanded a significantly lower price. The contradictory pricing behavior of the two companies devalued the (original) recommended retail price to such an extent that it no longer represented a market-driven orientation aid and only had the function of enabling the retailer to advertise attractive prices.
Conclusion
Advertising with reference to RRP may be inadmissible. This is particularly the case if the recommended price cannot be regarded as seriously calculated at the time of reference and therefore cannot be regarded as a recommended price. If the manufacturer or a company associated with it permanently underbids the recommended price, this is no longer considered a guide. A corresponding reference to this recommended price is then misleading and therefore inadmissible.
We are happy to
advise you on
Price advertising!
