Bargain price
as a
pitfall.
Bargain price
as a
pitfall.
of
When does a permitted RRP/MSRP comparison become inadmissible price reduction advertising? Is the word “UVP” in small print sufficient to remove the overall impression of a price reduction? And what are the consequences for retailers who mix real discounts and RRP/MSRP comparisons on a single brochure page?
What had happened?
A discount grocery store published an advertising brochure for the week of November 11 to 16, 2024. The headline on page 10 read “YOUR TRADEMARKS EVEN BETTER”, next to which was a red box with the inscription “SAVE UP TO -48%”. Six branded items were shown there with uniformly designed price tiles: the large offer price in the middle, a red percentage sticker at the top and a crossed-out amount at the bottom right.
For Red Bull Energy Drink, the tile showed a price of €0.99, a red sticker with “-23%” and “UVP 1.29” in small letters underneath. UVP (in English typically either RRP or MSRP) stands for “recommended retail price” of the manufacturer, i.e. the price that Red Bull recommends to retailers. The discounter had never charged this price itself. For three other items on the same page, however, the strike price was actually the discounter’s own former price.
A consumer protection association issued a cease and desist letter to the discounter for a breach of competition law. However, the discounter refused to issue the required cease-and-desist declaration.
Why is this a problem at all?
Under German and European law, anyone advertising a price reduction must state the starting point of the comparison. Specifically, the law stipulates that retailers must state the lowest price they themselves have charged for this product in the last 30 days when offering a price reduction. This is to prevent retailers from inventing an artificially high starting price in order to be able to show an impressive saving.
A comparison with the manufacturer’s recommended retail price is generally excluded. Anyone who says “Our price: €0.99, RRP: €1.29” is comparing their price with the manufacturer’s suggestion and not with their own previous price. This is permitted as long as the RRP is correct and the reference to it is clearly recognizable.
The problem in this case was the design: did the advertising look like a “real” price reduction to a normal consumer, although in reality there was only an RRP comparison?
In the present case, it is not a mere reference to the manufacturer’s recommended retail price, but the price indication is presented to the average consumer as a price reduction due to the nature of the advertising design.
Court objects to the advertising
The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court ruled that advertising with Judgment of 18.12.2025 – Ref. 20 U 43/25 judged the advertising to be anti-competitive. The judges not only looked at the individual price tile for the energy drink, but at the entire brochure page. Five points played a role here.
The crossed-out price
For most people, a crossed-out price is a clear sign that this item used to be more expensive and is now cheaper. The small word “RRP” in the bottom corner of the tile was barely noticeable when quickly scrolling through, as it was very inconspicuous compared to the large, red price information.
Same tiles for different types of borders
While three items were advertised on the same page with a real price reduction from the discounter, the energy drink was only advertised using an RRP comparison. However, all the tiles looked identical. Anyone who skimmed the page could not recognize the difference.
The red percentage sticker
The red “-23%” sticker is familiar from advertising for price reductions. It tells the same story as a strike price: the product has become cheaper. This time, however, the consumer could not see that the percentage referred to the manufacturer’s price.
The headline and the slogan
The wording “YOUR TRADEMARKS EVEN CHEAPER” means that the products are cheaper than before at this retailer. This wording raises the expectation that the retailer itself is carrying out a price reduction campaign and not that a comparison is being made with a manufacturer’s price.
The limited-time campaign week
Another typical feature of price reduction advertising is weekly promotions with a specific validity period. This reinforces the impression that the retailer has temporarily lowered its prices itself.
Discounters: “Everyone does it this way”
The discounter presented the court with brochures from other supermarket chains and discounters. These also advertise with crossed-out EIAs, percentage stickers and uniform tiles. This is common practice throughout the industry and does not lead to confusion among consumers.
The court was not convinced by this. A practice does not become lawful just because many people use it. On the contrary: precisely because almost all retailers advertise in this way, the consumer cannot tell when browsing whether a specific strike price is an earlier own price or a manufacturer’s price.
The consumer protection association is also taking action against other retailers with comparable advertising.
The lowest price of the last 30 days was missing
As the advertisement appeared to be an announcement of a price reduction, the discounter should have stated the lowest price it had charged for the energy drink in the last 30 days. However, this information was missing. The statement “RRP 1.29” referred to the manufacturer’s price and not to its own previous price.
Even if the discounter had also happened to offer the energy drink for €1.29 for the last 30 days, the problem would not have been solved. This is because the indication “RRP €1.29” does not clearly tell the consumer that this is the retailer’s own previous price. However, clarity is a legal obligation.
Significance for practice
Anyone who advertises with a percentage sticker and a strike price in a brochure or online must clearly and legibly state their own lowest price of the last 30 days as such, provided that the advertisement as a whole appears to be an announcement of a price reduction.
The reference “RRP” alone is not sufficient if it is printed so small that it is overlooked when browsing and if items with genuine own-price discounts are offered on the same page.
If you only want to compare the price with the manufacturer’s recommended retail price, you should clearly differentiate this visually from a price reduction advertisement, for example by not using strike prices and red percentage stickers.
Conclusion
Anyone who designs price reduction advertising must adhere to its rules. This also applies if a strike price is officially marked as an RRP/MSRP. The decisive factor is how the advertising appears to a normal consumer who quickly leafs through the brochure and does not analyze every detail.
Because many food retailers advertise according to the same pattern, the court has allowed an appeal. The Federal Court of Justice is expected to make a fundamental ruling on the issue. Until then, it is worth taking a critical look at your own advertising material.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
