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 video display banner ads for Debenhams:
a. The first ad, seen on 29 November 2025, showed two product images side by side on a white background. The left image showed a bed with a green bed frame and white bedding, with a red label in the top-left corner that stated, “-44%”. Underneath, a price was shown as “£349.00” in red, and on a later frame “£619.00” appeared in black with a line through it. In the next frame, a neon-style sign near the top displayed the words “BLACK FRIDAY”. Large white text in the centre stated “HOME”, with a button underneath labelled “SHOP NOW”. The web address “debenhams.com” appeared along the bottom of the ad.
b. The second ad, seen on 4 December 2025, showed a series of product images with red discount labels above them. One of the images was of a hair styling tool with accessory attachments. A red discount label above the product stated, “-21%”. Underneath, the price first appeared as “£379.99” in red. On a later frame, the price appeared as “£479.99” in black with a line through it.
The ad later showed a neon-style sign which stated, “BLUE CROSS CYBER STEALS” and the text “UP TO 75% OFF”. A green button stated, “SHOP NOW”, with “Debenhams.com” shown underneath.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the crossed-out reference prices and associated savings claims in ads (a) and (b) were misleading.
Response
DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams said they operated as a marketplace provider and acted only as an agent for third-party sellers marketing and selling products through their website. They said the products in question were sold and delivered by those third parties, and that contracts of sale were formed directly between the customer and the relevant seller. Third-party sellers were responsible for setting their own prices, and Debenhams did not set, facilitate or control the pricing or discounting of products uploaded through their seller portal. On that basis, they said they were not a joint advertiser in this context. They added that, under their terms and conditions, each seller was required to comply with applicable pricing legislation, which they had expressly agreed to.
They further stated that, with more than 20,000 partners, it would be unreasonable to expect them to individually monitor each product priced by a third-party seller, particularly where those sellers had contractually agreed to meet all legal advertising standards in line with Debenhams’ standard terms and conditions, and where partners received onboarding guidance setting out expectations for transparent pricing.
Assessment
Upheld
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute 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 not to make unfair or misleading price comparisons. It said that if a pricing practice explicitly or implicitly indicated a saving against another price, advertisers should be able to demonstrate that the quoted saving was genuine. How long the product was on sale at the higher price compared to the promotional price was an example given in the guidance of an issue that should be considered when assessing whether a reference price was genuine.
The ASA understood that Debenhams operated as a marketplace provider, acting as an agent for third-party sellers on its website and that those sellers were responsible for selling and delivering the products, forming contracts with customers, and setting their own prices. Debenhams stated that it did not have control over the pricing of those third-party listings. However, because Debenhams hosted offers from third-party sellers on its website, we considered that they were responsible for ensuring those offers represented a genuine saving.
Ad (a) included the claim “-44%”. Beneath the image of a bed, the price was shown as “£349.00”, with “£619.00” struck through. Ad (b) included the claim “-21%”. Beneath the image of a hairstyling product, “£379.99” was shown in red, with “£479.99” struck through. We considered that consumers were likely to understand that the bed had generally been sold at £619.00 and the hair styling product at £479.99, and that the stated savings of 44% and 21%, respectively, represented genuine savings available when the ads appeared. In order to demonstrate that £619.00 and £479.99 were realistic, usual selling prices for these products, we expected Debenhams to provide evidence that a significant number of sales had been made at these prices.
We did not receive detailed sales or pricing history for the product from Debenhams. However, we noted that the bed featured in ad (a) had been advertised at £349 since April 2025 and had therefore been on sale at that price for more than six months. Given that the price had been reduced for a prolonged period, that the saving claim had not been made against the price immediately preceding the ad, and that we had not been supplied with detailed pricing history, we considered that £619 was unlikely to represent the product’s usual selling price. For those reasons, we concluded that the quoted 44% saving was not genuine.
We also understood that, from 22 October 2025 until the start of the Black Friday promotion, the hair styling product in ad (b) was sold at £379. We further noted that it had been sold at £400 from 1 August 2025 to 21 August 2025, and again from 31 August 2025 to 22 September 2025. Because the product had been discounted several times during the six-month period, the saving claim had not been made against the price immediately preceding the ad. We had also not been supplied with the full pricing history and therefore we considered that £479.99 was unlikely to represent the usual selling price for that size of product. It was concluded therefore that the quoted 21% saving was not genuine.
Because we had not seen evidence that the savings claims made represented a genuine saving against the usual selling price of the products, we concluded the ads were misleading.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.17 (Prices).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams to ensure that their future savings claims did not mislead and were substantiated against the usual selling price of the products.
