Prices: General

Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.

Also known as: pricing overview, pricing, cost, price comparisons, pricing in ads

Rules 3.17 - 3.22 relate to price statements (which includes statements about the way the price will be calculated, as well as definite prices).

Ensure prices match the product shown

Include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges

Clearly state any commitment the consumer must make to obtain the price

Do not use “from” and “up to” to exaggerate the availability or potential savings

Consider the guidance before making price comparisons

Be aware of sector guidance

Ensure prices match the product shown

The ASA regularly upholds complaints about ads which feature products costing more than the stated price. Price statements must relate to the product featured in the ad and should not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion (rule 3.17). The pricing claim in an ad for a perfume was deemed to be misleading because the pricing claim ("ONLY £4.95") related to a 5ml sample, rather than the 100ml bottle depicted (The Essence Vault Ltd, 15 January 2025). See also I Saw it First Ltd, 10 March 2021.

Similarly, marketers should not feature a picture of a top-of-the-range or enhanced product and quote in the headline a price for a lower specification model. In 2014, the ASA upheld a complaint that a car ad was misleading because the models featured were shown with metallic paint and alloy wheels, which were not included in the price shown (BMW UK Ltd, 5 March 2014).

Include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges

Quoted prices must include non-optional taxes, duties, fees and charges that apply to all or most buyers (rule 3.18).

For example, in 2019, the ASA ruled against an ad for a rental car company, because the quoted price did not include the non-optional car company hire fee (Rentalcars.com, 13 March 2019).

If it is not possible to calculate the charge in advance, for example because it depends on the consumer’s circumstances, the ad must make clear the charge is excluded from the advertised price and state how it will be calculated (rule 3.19).

If a price is included in an ad, any applicable delivery, freight or postal charges must also be stated, unless they cannot be reasonably calculated in advance, in which case it must be made clear that such charges will be payable (rule 3.20). See GETMEIN! Ltd, 07 March 2018

For detailed guidance on these rules please see:

Compulsory costs and charges: general

Compulsory costs and charges: VAT

Compulsory costs and charges: delivery charges

Compulsory costs and charges: credit and debit card fees

Postage and packing

Clearly state any commitment the consumer must make to obtain the price

If the price of one product depends on another, marketing communications must make clear the extent of the commitment the consumer must make to obtain the advertised price (rule 3.21).

For example, a promoter offering a tie for £1 when customers buy a shirt for £20 cannot have an unqualified claim of “buy a tie for £1”. Such a promotion would need to be clarified immediately and prominently to explain customers’ financial obligation; for example, the promoter could claim “Get a tie for £1 when you spend £20 on selected shirts” or “Shirt and Tie offer - £21”.

Do not use “from” and “up to” to exaggerate the availability or potential savings

Rule 3.22 states that price claims such as "up to" and "from" must not exaggerate the availability or amount of benefits likely to be obtained by the consumer.

When assessing “up to” and “from” saving claims the ASA are likely to have regard to the CTSI Guidance For Traders on Pricing Practices. This guidance states that, when using “from” or “up to” to advertise a saving, marketers must ensure that a significant proportion of sale items are discounted at the maximum saving, and that these claims represent the true overall picture of the price promotion.

What is considered a “significant proportion” may depend on individual factors in each case and the ASA will consider this on a case-by-case basis. Historically, the ASA have considered that less than 10% is unlikely to be considered a significant proportion. An ad for a January sale which stated “up to 70% off plus a further 10% off” was upheld by the ASA because the number of sale items which were discounted by 70% before the additional 10% discount was 8.63%, which was not considered a significant proportion (Better Bathrooms UK Ltd, 4 October 2017). See also Kiddies Kingdom Ltd, 13 October 2021.

When assessing whether an “up to” or “from” claim represents the true overall picture of a sale, the ASA is likely to expect the sale items with the maximum saving to be distributed across different price ranges. Even if a significant proportion of sales items have the maximum saving, if these sale items are disproportionately in the lower price ranges, an “up to” or “from” claim is still likely to mislead (Better Bathrooms UK Ltd, 4 October 2017).

For further guidance on this point and others, such as reference pricing, see ‘Promotional savings claims’.

Consider the guidance before making price comparisons

Rule 3.39 states that marketing communications that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear.

For example, whilst marketers may legitimately make price comparisons between branded and non-branded products, the basis of the comparison must be clear. See Aldi Ltd, 29 June 2016.

The following guidance contains further information in respect of price comparisons:

Guidance on making lowest price claims and price promises in marketing communications

Lowest price claims and promises

Guidance on retailers’ price comparisons in marketing communications

Comparisons: General

Comparisons: baskets of goods

Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail price (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold (rule 3.40).

The ASA considered the claim “HALF PRICE!...RRP £29.99 NOW ONLY £14.99” to be misleading, as the product was only ever sold for £14.99, and not at the RRP (Vytaliving Ltd, 27 March 2024).

For further information see ‘Prices: recommended retail prices (RRPs)’ and ‘Promotional savings claims’.