Ad description
Two pages on the Very website, www.very.co.uk, seen on 10 February 2026:
a. A product page for the “Stiletto Ceramic Top Coffee Table – White” featured the text “£129 (Save £150)”. Crossed through text underneath stated “£279”.
b. A second product page for the “New Rubberwood Fixed Top 100 cm Kentucky Dining Table + 4 Chairs - White” featured the text “£299 (Save £50)”. Crossed through text underneath stated “£349”.
Issue
Which?, the consumer protection group, challenged whether the reference prices and associated savings claims in ads (a) and (b) were misleading.
Response
Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very said that the product featured in ad (a) was discontinued in July 2025. At that time, the existing “was” price of £279 should have been manually suppressed by the furniture team to prevent it from being pulled through to their website. However, due to human error, that had not been completed. The £279 “was” price had therefore been automatically displayed on the website.
Very said the table and chairs set featured in ad (b) was available to purchase at the “was” price of £349 for 25 days between 10 August and 3 September 2025; 31 days between 3 October and 2 November 2025; and 15 days between 3 December and 17 December 2025. From 18 December 2025, their furniture team should have manually suppressed the £349 “was” price from automatically appearing on the website. That had not been completed due to human error.
Very provided a spreadsheet setting out the pricing and sales history for the products featured in the ads between August 2025 and February 2026. They accepted that the “was/now” prices seen in the ads on 10 February 2026 were not compliant with the CAP Code and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute’s (CTSI) Guidance for Traders on Pricing Practices.
Assessment
Upheld
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 from the struck-through price and claim “Save £150” in ad (a) and the struck-through price and claim “Save £50” in ad (b) that the advertised prices represented a genuine saving against the price at which the products were usually sold. We therefore expected Very to hold evidence, in the form of pricing and sales data, to demonstrate that the struck-through prices represented the genuine usual selling price of the advertised products.
We reviewed the information Very provided in relation to the product featured in ad (a). We understood that the product had been discontinued in July 2025, and that Very had accepted that the reference price “£279” should have been removed from the website. The data provided showed that in the six months before the ad was seen, the product had been offered for sale at a range of eleven different prices, between £116 and £279. It had only been offered for sale at the reference price of £279 for six days. We therefore considered that, due to the very limited amount of time the product had been available for at £279, this was not the genuine usual selling price of the product, and was not an accurate reference price on which to base the claim “save £150”.
We next considered the pricing and sales data provided in relation to the table and chairs set featured in ad (b). We understood the product had been sold for £349 for three time-limited periods between August and December 2025, and that from 18 December it had been sold for £299 or less. In the six months before the ad was seen, the product had been sold for £349 for 69 days, and for £299 or lower for 114 days. The product had not been sold for £349 for an extended period before the ad was seen, and had been sold at a discounted price for longer than it had been sold for £349. For those reasons, we considered that £349 was not representative of the genuine usual selling price of the product, and was not an accurate reference price on which to base the claim “save £50”.
Because the “was” prices featured in the ads did not represent the genuine established usual selling prices of the featured products, we concluded that the reference prices and associated savings claims in ads (a) and (b) 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 Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very to ensure that future savings claims did not mislead and that they substantiated any savings claims against the usual selling price of the product.
