An ad for Sports Direct has been banned after a watchdog found that the retail giant made misleading claims about a recommended retail price (RRP) and related savings.
An ad on sportsdirect.com in February for a Puma “Women’s Zipped Baselayer Top” featured the text “from £17.00 RRP £45.00”, with the £45 figure struck through.
Further text underneath the price stated “UP TO 50% OFF.”
Consumer group Which? complained that the quoted RRP differed significantly from the price at which the product was generally sold, claiming that the reference price and associated savings claims were misleading.
Frasers Group Trading Ltd, trading as Sports Direct, told the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that they had obtained written confirmation from Puma that the RRP for the “Women’s Zipped Baselayer Top” featured in the ad had always been £45.
Sports Direct said Puma had also confirmed that the product was sold by them for £45 from at least February 1 2023 to April 22 2024.
Sports Direct said it believed that both the RRP and discounted price seen in the ad were fair and accurate, and considered there was no detriment to consumers because they could not get a better price anywhere else.
The ASA said consumers would expect the RRP to be a genuine selling price and to be able to make a saving against that price, reinforced by the claim “UP TO 50% OFF.”
The watchdog said it had seen evidence that, as well as being sold for £17 on the Sports Direct website, the product was being sold for £17 by another large online and high street retailer owned by Frasers Group, and for £23 by an online sporting goods store.
The ASA said: “Overall, we considered the evidence suggested the stated RRP was not the price at which the product was generally sold across the market, and that the RRP and associated savings claim were not genuine.
“Because we considered the evidence provided was insufficient, we concluded that the quoted RRP and associated savings claim for the advertised product were misleading.”
Sports Direct said it regarded the ruling as “fundamentally wrong” and would be “contesting it fully”.
In a statement, the retailer said: “According to the ASA, this promotion breached the Advertising Code because the RRP did not reflect the price at which the product concerned was ‘generally sold across the market’.
“In fact, the ASA were supplied with evidence that it had been sold/advertised at the RRP, but they have chosen to ignore it.
“The ASA’s underlying approach to the use of RRPs, and their test, is fundamentally flawed and ‘out of touch’ anyway.
“We do not accept that it is the valid legal test for whether an RRP is misleading or not, or that it reflects consumers’ understanding of RRPs, which have been around for many decades.
“Its application by the ASA is to the detriment of consumers being able to find the best possible deals and the test is also unworkable in practice for traders, having to compile data from ‘across the market’ in order to establish each and every RRP they use.
“The specific evidence of consumer behaviour the ASA seeks to rely on to defend its position goes back around eight years.
“The world has moved on.”
Which? director of policy and advocacy Rocio Concha said: “Customers shouldn’t have to second-guess whether the price claims they see are accurate.
“It is unacceptable that Sports Direct abused consumer trust with misleading reference prices that might lead them to think they are getting a good deal.
“The ASA’s ruling is a positive step, but there needs to be a much stronger deterrent against misleading price claims.
“This case highlights the need for the Government to implement its ban on deceptive pricing urgently to give consumers much-needed protection and a fair chance for businesses that price honestly.”
