Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for Origin Sleep, https://originmattress.co.uk, seen between November and December 2025.
A banner, seen on 22 December 2025, on the home page stated “SAVE UP TO 27% WITH 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*. ENDS 00DAYS 14HRS 56MINS 31SECS (i)”. Text underneath said “BOXING DAY MEGA SAVINGS. SAVE UP TO 2…WORTH £196*”. The text was obscured by a countdown appeared stating “HURRY! UP TO 27% OFF PROMO ENDS […]”. It then listed the countdown in days, hours, minutes and seconds.
A second banner, seen on 22 December 2025, on the home page stated “SAVE UP TO 34% OFF. WITH UP TO 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*”. Beside it a countdown clock listed the countdown in days, hours, minutes and seconds. Text in the body of the page stated “BOXING DAY MEGA SAVINGS” and then featured the same text as the banner. Beneath that a countdown clock appeared stating “HURRY! UP TO 34% OFF ENDS […]”, It then listed the countdown in days, hours, minutes and seconds.
Text on the home page, seen on 29 December 2025, stated “NEW YEAR’S SAVINGS. SAVE UP TO 33% OFF. WITH UP TO 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*”. Beneath that a countdown clock appeared stating “HURRY! UP TO 33% OFF ENDS […]”. It then listed the countdown in days, hours, minutes and seconds.
The home page, from 10 November 2025 to 29 December 2025, further included the product webpage images for the “Hybrid Mattress”, “Hybrid Pro Mattress” and “LumbarCloud Mattress”. The pages below the images showed a struck through “from” price, a bold red selling price and the difference in the two prices in a red box with text that stated “SAVE £XX”.
Issue
Simba Sleep Ltd challenged whether:
1. the claim “UP TO 27% WITH 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*” on the home page implied the mattress was discounted by 27% and was independent of the “free” pillows and was misleading;
2. the claim “NEW YEAR’S SAVINGS. SAVE UP TO 33% OFF” on the home page appeared as soon as the Boxing Day “SAVE UP TO 34% OFF” offer finished and was misleading; and
3. the reference prices and associated savings claims for the “Hybrid Mattress”, “Hybrid Pro Mattress” and “LumbarCloud Mattress” were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Origin Sleep UK Ltd (Origin) said the claim “UP TO 27% WITH 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*” was not misleading because the basis of the savings claim clearly explained via a pop up and on the product page.
They explained that the claim was not presented as a standalone mattress price reduction but instead was the total value of the promotional bundle. The bundle was the mattress in combination with two free pillows.
They said that the claim, which appeared sitewide, included an “(i)” button. When that was clicked on a pop up appeared which clearly showed the mechanics of the offer. Origin provided an example of similar text from another promotion that stated “The savings shown reflect the retail value of the complimentary products included with your purchase. For example if the mattress retails for £300 and you receive £100 worth of free add-ons, that amounts to savings of 25%!”.
Origin further explained that the product page had the price of the complimentary pillows, visual representation of the pillows and included text that stated ““What is the basis of this discount? The savings shown reflect the retail value of the complimentary products included with your purchase”. They said all consumers would have seen that text before making a purchase. In addition if someone unticked the free products on the product page the price of the mattress was shown.
They said savings based on bundled value were commonly used in retail promotions. They stated that as long as the saving was clearly explained and the individual elements of the bundle were outlined clearly it was not misleading. They believed the ad was compliant because the bundle was clearly shown, the value of the additional items was disclosed and all information was given before a consumer made a purchase. They confirmed they had checked their approach to the promotion with Copy Advice and it had been approved.
2. Origin said the two promotions were distinct campaigns and not a continuous single promotion. That was evidenced by their different discount levels (33% and 34%) and that one was for Boxing Day and the other New Year. They confirmed further that the two promotions had specific start and end dates and so the countdown timers reflected genuine deadlines and were not extended or reset once expired.
They explained that they rarely used countdown timers and when they did it was in extraordinary circumstances where they offered not only free items but also discounts off their mattresses. Usually they offered a standard promotion (free items) with no countdown timer. They said the Boxing Day sale counted as an extra-ordinary sale event, where they offered a discount three weeks in a row. They explained that each week the price for mattress increased and the countdown timer was there to make consumers aware. They said they explicitly told customers during this period: “We have Boxing Day sale event for 3 weeks in a row. Each Monday we will raise the price - 3 weeks in a row”.
They said on week one customers got free items and the largest discount on the mattress (10% off). Then week two they offered free items and a smaller 9% discount. Finally, week three they continued with the free items and offered an 8% discount. So each week they dropped the discount by 1% and after that the use of the countdown timer ended as they went back to their ordinary sales.
3. Origin said that the images taken from their website of pricing broadly were split into two categories. From 10 November 2025 to 18 November 2025 the reference price shown was not a “was” price and no price was shown struck through. Instead the prices referenced “Similar Brands’ Average Price” which was an old method of communicating the value of Origin mattresses which they no longer used.
The screenshots from 24 November 2025 onwards did use a strike-through but it was not the previous price of the mattress. Instead, it was the price of the mattress and the free items combined, as explained under point 1. They used the example of the website on 25 November 2025 where it stated the hybrid mattress price was displayed as “from £403 £278” with £403 struck through. During that time the single mattress was £305 and it came with one free pillow which was sold for £98. The combination of the mattress and the pillow was £403. That was why the £403 price was struck through and the £278 was shown as the price. The saving of £125 was the £98 pillow and a separate promotion of 9% off the mattress.
They explained that on the product page further explanation was provided to consumers to understand the basis of the discount. When the complimentary pillow offer was not selected, the page displayed “Save 9% off your mattress” and “Save £27”. When the complimentary pillow offer was selected, the page displayed “Save 31% off with 1 free pillow” and “Save £125”. In addition the product page included a bold statement directly beneath the free items section, which stated “What is the basis of this discount? The savings shown reflect a promotional discount on the mattress and retail value of the complimentary products included with your purchase”.
They said that on the home page an accompanying pop up was provided. Origin submitted an example of the pop-up text, although it was not the exact text that appeared at the time the ads were seen. The text of the pop up said “UP TO 36% OFF WITH FREE items up to £529. The savings shown reflect the retail value of the complimentary products included with your purchase. For example if the mattress retails for £300 and you receive £100 worth of free add-ons, that amounts to savings of 25%!”
They said therefore consumers were clearly able to see the basis of the discount on the product page and in a pop up shown in every page of the website. However, they had updated the website navigation menu to reflect the explanation in the pop up.
Assessment
1.Upheld
The Origin home page, seen on 22 December 2025, stated “SAVE UP TO 27% WITH 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*. ENDS 00DAYS 14HRS 56MINS 31SECS (i)”. Further text underneath that said “BOXING DAY MEGA SAVINGS. SAVE UP TO 2…WORTH £196*”. The text was obscured by a countdown which appeared stating “HURRY! UP TO 27% OFF PROMO ENDS […]”. It then listed the countdown in days, hours, minutes and seconds.
The ASA understood that the 27% off had been calculated by deducting the price of the pillows, £196, from the price of the mattress. The price at the time of the ad for the Origin Hybrid Pro Mattress had been £724. By deducting £196 from £724 the price for the bundle was £528. The reduction from £724 to £528 was the 27% quoted in the ad.
We accepted that an advertiser could use free items to state a saving on a bundle, i.e. if one of the free items was ordinarily part of a bundle, and the cost of the overall bundle had been reduced as a result of the item being offered for free. However, if the advertiser chose to present a saving in that way then they should make it clear that the product advertised was a bundle and that the saving was the price of the free items against the total bundled price. The ad stated “SAVE UP TO 27% WITH 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*”. It appeared above an image of a mattress and text that stated “Shop Mattresses”. Therefore, in the absence of further information consumers were likely to understand the claim as meaning they would receive 27% off the mattress, as well as two free pillows worth £196, rather than that the 27% was the amount of the discount as a result of the pillows being free.
We noted Origin’s comments that further explanation was included in the pop up generated by clicking on the (i) and on the product page. However, we considered that any explanation in the qualification would contradict the claim, and would not have been sufficient to override the impression created by the claim that there was a saving on the price of the mattress. Further to that, while the product page did have more explanation about how the discount had been provided, that was one click away from the home page and therefore was not sufficient to override the impression from the savings claim. For those reasons, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.17 (Prices).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would interpret the claims “SAVE UP TO 34% OFF. WITH UP TO 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*” and “NEW YEAR’S SAVINGS. SAVE UP TO 33% OFF. WITH UP TO 2 FREE PILLOWS WORTH £196*, alongside the presence of countdown clocks, to mean that the opportunity to purchase a mattress at 34% and 33% off with two free pillows, would expire when the countdown clock reached zero. As discussed in point one, we considered that in the absence of further explanation, the presentation of a discount which had been calculated by deducting free items from the price of a mattress, but appeared to refer to a discount for the mattress alone, was misleading. That notwithstanding, in relation to the countdown clocks we considered consumers would expect the price of the mattresses to then return to the price at which they were generally sold. However, we understood that Origin offered a 10% discount in week one, a 9% discount in week two and an 8% discount in week three. Only after week three ended did the price for the mattress return to the higher reference price.
We noted Origin’s response that all customers were told “We have Boxing Day sale event for 3 weeks in a row. Each Monday we will raise the price - 3 weeks in a row” but we had not seen any evidence of that. The ad therefore misleadingly implied that the 34% and 33% discounts would soon end, at which point the price would revert to the usual selling price, when that was not the case. We considered that was likely to pressurise consumers into making a swift transactional decision, including purchasing products, without giving their purchase the due consideration they normally would because of the misleading implication in the ad. For those reasons, we concluded the ad breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 8.17.4e (Promotional Marketing)
3. Upheld
Origin had used two pricing structures within the timeframe complained about. From 10 November 2025 to 18 November 2025, they used a “similar brands average price” which was subsequently discontinued. Then from 24 November 2025 until 29 December 2025 they used pricing that combined the cost of the mattress and any free item. We understood that the second pricing structure was the current method for presenting pricing. Both of the pricing presentations had been displayed on the home page of the website as well as the individual product pages. For the purposes of the assessment we considered the pricing structure from 24 November 2025 until 29 December 2025 on the Origin home page.
Origin had explained that from 24 November 2025 strike-through pricing had been displayed. However, the strike-through did not represent a previous selling price or “was” price. Instead the price which had been crossed through was the combined price of the mattress and free items. The lower price was therefore the saving a consumer would have made from purchasing the mattress and the free item versus the full price mattress and free item represented by the higher price, as explained in point 1.
We understood on that basis that the intention of the pricing was not to represent a “was” price and therefore Origin had not considered it necessary to retain any sales data to verify that the product had been sold at the implied reference price at any time, or that was the price at which the product was genuinely sold. Nevertheless, we considered the presentation of the pricing was such that consumers were likely to understand it to be a “was” price and therefore been misled.
For example, in relation to the Hybrid mattress, the ad, on 24 November 2025, stated “from £403” and the £403 had been crossed out. Alongside that was a bold red price of £278 with “Save £125” next to it in a red box. Text above stated “Free 1x Airsoft Microfibre Pillow Worth £98”. We considered consumers would understand that £403 was the usual selling price of the mattress, and that a saving of £125 could be made against that usual selling price.
However, the £403 price had been calculated by adding together the mattress cost of £305 and the free pillow of £98. The saving of £125 was the total of the free pillow (£98) and a second promotion of 9% off the mattress which was £27.
We noted that the listings were all for individual mattresses. While free items were highlighted in the ads and some stated “SAVE XX%” with the free items, it was not clear from the ad that the crossed out price was the combination of the mattress and the free items and the lower price was based on the saving of buying them together at full price. Origin had told us that a pop up had appeared explaining the basis of the saving but that was not shown in the ad provided to us. In addition any explanation in the qualification would contradict the claim, and would not have been sufficient to override the impression created by the claim that there was a saving on the price of the mattress. Further to that, while the product page did have further explanation about how the discount had been provided, that was one click away from the home page and therefore was not sufficient. The ad therefore presented a reference price that would be understood by consumers to be a “was” price for the mattress alone. Because that was not the case the ad was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.17 (Prices).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Origin Sleep UK Ltd to ensure that pricing claims should not suggest a saving against a product when it was actually referring to a saving based on an additional free item. We also told them to ensure their ads did not misleadingly imply that discount offers were time-limited, or that consumers needed to act more quickly than was necessary to take advantage of an offer.
