Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), Parker Products Ltd t/a ParkerBrand and Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress
Where: United Kingdom
When: 15 July 2026
Law stated as at: 11 August 2026
What happened
Unsubstantiated ‘was’ price
An ad on the ParkerBrand website for a pressure washer displayed a crossed-out price of £399.98 alongside the claims “IN STOCK“, “50% OFF NOW £199.99 inc. VAT” and a “BUY NOW” button. The complainant challenged whether the price claim “WAS £399.98” was misleading, on the basis that the product had repeatedly been sold at much lower prices.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the price claim that the usual selling price of the product was £399.98 and that a genuine saving of £199.99 could therefore be made. However, the ASA received no evidence from Parker Products to demonstrate that the higher price stated was the usual selling price. It therefore concluded that the savings claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
Countdown clocks and bundled discounts
The ASA upheld complaints against Origin Mattress’ ads on three grounds.
First, a claim on the website promoting a bundle comprising the mattress together with two pillows, which stated “UP TO 27% WITH 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*”, was challenged as misleadingly implying that the mattress was discounted by 27% independently of the “free” pillows. The ASA found that the 27% saving had been calculated by deducting the price of the pillows (£196) from the mattress price (£724), producing a bundle price of £528.
The ASA accepted that advertisers can present savings in this way, provided that they make clear that the product is a bundle and that the saving represents the price of the free items against the total bundled price. However, in this case, the claim appeared above an image of a mattress and text reading “Shop Mattresses”. According to the ASA, consumers were therefore likely to understand the claim as offering 27% off the mattress plus two free pillows worth £196, not that the 27% discount reflected the value of the free pillows. Although the product page, which was one click away, provided further explanation, the ASA found that any explanation in the qualification would contradict the claim, and that because the explanation was one click away from the home page, it was not sufficient to override the impression created by the savings claim. The ASA concluded that the ad was misleading.
Second, the complainant alleged that the claim “NEW YEAR’S SAVINGS. SAVE UP TO 33% OFF” on the website appeared as soon as the Boxing Day “SAVE UP TO 34% OFF” offer finished and was misleading. The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim, alongside countdown clocks, to mean that the discount opportunity would expire when the clock reached zero. Consumers would therefore expect the price to return to the usual selling price once the countdown ended. Origin offered staggered discounts across three consecutive weeks (10%, 9% and 8%), with the price only returning to the higher reference price after week three. The ad therefore misleadingly implied that the discounts would end soon and the price would revert to the usual selling price. The ASA concluded that this was likely to pressurise consumers into making a swift transactional decision without due consideration.
Third, Origin Mattress’ reference prices and associated savings claims for the mattresses were challenged as misleading. The ASA found that from 24 November 2025 until 29 December 2025, Origin used strike-through pricing on its website. However, the crossed-out price did not represent a previous selling price: a “was” price. Instead, the crossed-out price represented the combined price of the mattress and any free items, with the lower price reflecting the saving from purchasing them together. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand the crossed-out price as a “was” price for the mattress alone and would therefore have been misled.
Why this matters
These rulings demonstrate the ASA’s proactive stance on price claims. In particular, advertisers are reminded that the “was” price should genuinely reflect the product’s usual selling price and that they should hold adequate evidence to substantiate this. The Origin Sleep ruling also highlights that bundling the value of “free” items into a headline percentage discount, without making the basis of the saving clear, is likely to mislead consumers. Additionally, where countdown clocks are used, they should accurately reflect the time at which the price will revert to the usual selling price once the countdown expires.
Misleading pricing claims are already an area in which both the ASA and the Competition and Markets Authority are active. In August, the prime minister announced further plans to crack down on these practices. The government stated that it will consult this autumn on whether “tactics such as fake “was” prices, invented discounts and misleading recommended retail prices” should be added to the list of banned practices under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. This would render these practices automatically unfair without reference to their effect on consumers’ decisions, and potentially increase the risk of enforcement from a consumer law perspective.
