Background
This ruling forms part of a wider group of investigations on Black Friday price promotions. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules. See also related rulings published on 20 May.
Ad description
Two online display ads for Boots:
a. The first ad, seen on 26 November 2025, featured a voice-over which stated, “Boots’ biggest ever Black Friday is here with better than half price star gifts. Including this Yankee Candle set, was £60, now only £29.50 […] For more incredible savings, shop our Black Friday offers now”. An image of the Yankee Candle product was shown on screen, accompanied by the text “£60 [crossed out] £29.50”.
b. The second ad, seen on 23 November 2025 featured a voice-over which stated, “Boots’ biggest ever Black Friday is here with up to 30% off premium beauty and fragrance must haves. Including […] this BOSS Bottle Beyond fragrance, was £80 now only £60 […] For more incredible savings, shop our Black Friday offers now”. An image of the BOSS fragrance was shown on screen, accompanied by the text “£80 [crossed out] £60”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the reference prices in ads (a) and (b) and associated savings claims were misleading.
Response
Boots UK Ltd stated they had obtained Primary Authority advice in relation to how they operated reference price promotions. They stated that all members of their commercial and marketing teams were required to undertake regular training on pricing and promotions.
Boots said they first sold the Yankee Candle gift set featured in ad (a) in August 2025 as part of their Christmas gifting range. They said it was sold for £60 for 54 days between August and October 2025, and for £29.50 for 41 days between October and December 2025, which satisfied the principles of the CTSI (Chartered Trading Standards Institute) guidance on pricing practices and CAP guidance on reference pricing. They also said the product was sold in significant quantities at the higher price, with approximately 15,000 products being sold at £60 and 40,000 sold at £29.50. They believed they had demonstrated that £60 was a genuine reference price and that the ad complied with the CAP Code.
Boots said the Hugo Boss fragrance featured in ad (b) was first sold on 10 September 2025 when it launched. As the product was new to market, no pricing history before this date was available. They stated the fragrance was sold at £80 for 21 days, £64 for 26 days and £60 for 40 days. They acknowledged the product had been sold at the promotional price for longer than the reference price, and stated this was due to a member of staff failing to follow Boots’ internal policies on pricing and promotions. They said they would take measures to prevent the recurrence of this issue and that further training was being provided.
Boots provided a spreadsheet containing pricing history and sales data for both products.
Assessment
Upheld in relation to ad (b) only
The CTSI Guidance for Traders on Pricing Practices (the Guidance) offered practical advice to traders on consumer protection laws and associated practices. While we noted that the guidance provided a set of principles rather than statutory rules, we took the Guidance into account when making our assessment.
The Guidance stated that it was important that price comparisons were genuine. It stated that, in order to ensure a price comparison was genuine, retailers should consider how long the advertised product had been on sale at the higher price, compared to the period for which the promotional price was offered. If a product was offered at a promotional price for a longer period than it was sold at the comparative price, the price comparison may not be genuine.
The ASA considered that consumers would understand that the “was” prices in ads (a) and (b) represented the usual price at which the products were sold, and that by purchasing the products during the Black Friday offer they would achieve a genuine saving against the usual selling price of the products. We therefore expected Boots to hold evidence, in the form of detailed sales and pricing history, to demonstrate that the “was” prices featured in the ads represented the genuine usual selling prices for those products.
We reviewed the evidence provided. We understood that the Yankee Candle product featured in ad (a) had only been sold since August 2025. The product had been sold for £60 for 54 days after its introduction. The product had then been offered at the promotional price of £29.50 for 41 days, before reverting to the £60 price after the promotional period ended. The product had therefore been offered for sale at the higher price for longer than the promotional price. We also noted that, whilst more sales were made whilst the product was offered for the promotional price, a significant number of sales (approximately 15,000) had been made at the higher price. We therefore considered that £60 had been established as the genuine usual selling price of the product and concluded the reference price and associated savings claims in ad (a) were not misleading.
We next considered the evidence provided in relation to the BOSS Bottle Beyond fragrance. We understood that although the fragrance had been sold for £80 when the product was first introduced, it had only been sold at that price for a period of 21 days. The fragrance had been sold for the intervening price of £64, and the promotional price of £60, for longer than it had been available at the reference price. Because the product had been available at £60 for a substantially longer period than it had been available at £80, we considered £80 had not been established as the genuine usual selling price of the product. We therefore concluded that the “was £80” claim, and the associated implied savings claims, were misleading.
We investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.17 (Prices), but did not find it in breach.
Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.17 (Prices).
Action
Ad (b) must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Boots UK Ltd to ensure that their future ads did not mislead and that savings claims were made against the genuine usual selling price of the product.
