UGG boot retailer pays penalties for strikethrough pricing claims

An UGG boot retailer has paid penalties of $39,600 after the ACCC raised concerns that its strikethrough pricing claims may have misled consumers about the savings available.

The ACCC alleged that the retailer displayed higher strikethrough prices alongside lower sale prices, creating the impression that consumers were receiving a genuine discount from the usual selling price.

However, the ACCC raised concerns that the higher prices used to calculate the advertised savings did not accurately represent the prices at which the products were ordinarily sold.

Strikethrough pricing and other savings representations can strongly influence purchasing decisions because they suggest consumers are receiving a special deal or better value.

This action is an important reminder that promotional pricing claims must reflect genuine savings and the overall impression created for consumers.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ADVERTISERS AND PUBLISHERS?

This decision reinforces that price comparison claims must accurately reflect the value of the offer being presented to consumers.

For advertisers, any savings claim should be accurate, not misleading and capable of being substantiated.

For publishers, the focus is not on independently verifying an advertiser’s pricing history or sales records but recognising claims that may require additional consideration or confirmation before publication.

Publishers should pay particular attention to claims such as:

• strikethrough prices

• “Was/Now” pricing

• “Save X%”

• “X% off”

• “Normally $X”

• “Valued at $X”

• “RRP $X” comparisons

Where a claim creates the impression of a saving or special offer, consider whether the advertiser has confirmed the claim can be supported.

Advertisers should carefully consider:

The comparison price must be genuine

The higher reference price used in a promotion should represent a genuine comparison point for consumers. If a product was not usually sold at the higher price, consumers may receive a misleading impression about the saving available.

The size of the discount matters

Large percentage discounts can create a strong impression of value and may influence consumers’ purchasing decisions.

Advertisers should ensure that the advertised saving reflects an actual consumer benefit.

The overall impression matters

Advertisers should consider what a reasonable consumer would understand from the promotion.

Would they believe:

• the product was previously sold at the higher price?

• the discount represents a genuine saving?

• the offer represents a special opportunity to purchase at a reduced price?

If the impression created does not match reality, the advertising may create risk under the Australian Consumer Law.

KEY TAKEAWAY

Before publishing price comparisons or savings claims, consider:

“Does the advertising create a clear impression about the value of the offer, and has the advertiser confirmed they can support that claim?”

Publishers are not expected to independently verify an advertiser’s pricing history or substantiate every discount claim. However, claims such as:

• strikethrough pricing

• “Was/Now”

• “Save X%”

• “Normally $X”

• “Valued at $X”

should be treated as objective claims that the advertiser must be able to support.

If a claim appears unusual, exaggerated or unclear, consider seeking confirmation from the advertiser that appropriate substantiation is held.

A discount claim is not just about the final price — it is about the impression created about the value of the offer.

PUBLISHER TAKEOUT

Publishers are not expected to verify an advertiser’s pricing history, but savings claims are objective advertising claims. If a strikethrough price, discount or value claim appears unclear or unusually strong, consider checking that the advertiser holds appropriate support before publication.