Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Nectar Sleep Ltd
Where: United Kingdom
When: 12 August 2026
Law stated as at: 18 September 2026
What happened
The ASA has ruled that savings claims on the website of Nectar Sleep, a mattress brand, were misleading. The ad implied that consumers could save up to 65% against Nectar Sleep’s usual selling prices, but the claim was in fact based on a comparison with an average of selected competitors’ prices.
Nectar Sleep’s website featured claims such as “the Nectar price drop is here” and “save up to 65%”, with smaller text reading “Savings compared to Similar Brands Avg Prices”.
The ASA considered that consumers would typically understand “up to” percentage savings claims to be made in the context of a sale or promotion, representing a potential saving compared to the usual selling price of a product. In this case, the ASA considered that consumers would understand the “save up to 65%” claim to mean they could make a genuine saving against Nectar Sleep’s usual selling prices, reinforced by the reference to a “price drop”.
However, the claimed savings were in fact based on a comparison with the average price of comparable competitor products, rather than Nectar Sleep’s own usual selling prices. The ASA found that the term “Similar Brands Average Prices” was unlikely to be familiar to most consumers and that they would be unlikely to know how that figure had been calculated. It was also ambiguous in the context of claims referencing a “price drop” and large percentage savings, and was likely to be confusing to consumers who expected the quoted savings to be achieved as part of a sale.
The “Similar Brands Average Price” for each mattress was calculated from three competitor products that Nectar Sleep considered comparable. The ASA considered that, given the ambiguous and broad nature of the claim, consumers would expect the comparison to be representative of prices across the mattress sector, including products from a wide range of well-known retailers. However, since the “average price” was derived from only three competitor products, a number of retailers were excluded from the comparison. Further, because the “Similar Brands Average Price” was based on an average, and consumers were not able to purchase a competing product at that price, the ASA said that the claimed 65% saving was not based on an established, genuinely available reference price.
The “up to” savings claim was calculated by averaging savings across all of Nectar Sleep’s mattresses, which limited its use as a comparison tool, as it was difficult for consumers to compare Nectar Sleep’s products directly with those of its competitors and to identify the products against which the greatest savings could be made. For some products, the saving was considerably less than 65%. Because the ad implied that consumers could save up to 65% against Nectar Sleep’s usual selling prices, and it was unclear how the “Similar Brands Average Price” and percentage savings had been calculated, the ASA concluded that the claims misleadingly exaggerated the savings consumers could achieve.
Why this matters
This ruling underscores that where businesses calculate savings by reference to competitor prices, rather than their own usual selling prices, savings claims must be based on transparent and meaningful comparisons and clearly explain the methodology. The use of promotional language such as “price drop” can further reinforce consumer expectations that savings are measured against the advertiser’s own previous prices. Brands should ensure that any headline savings claims accurately reflect the basis of the comparison and that qualifying information is sufficiently prominent.
