Pricing and charges

Helpful information on the advertising rules for the pricing of products and services and additional charges, not including legally required costs such as taxes or VAT.

Our rules state that price statements must relate to the product featured in the ad and not a variation of the make or model, and should not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. We also advise advertisers to refer to the BIS Pricing Practices Guide when preparing their ads.

Another area of complaint we often see is the recommended retail price (RRP) of a product or service. Ordinarily, even if advertisers can provide documentary evidence that the quoted RRP in the ad was recommended by the manufacturer of the product this might not be enough, and any complaints received may get upheld. We require advertisers to be able to demonstrate the product has actually been sold at the advertised price. If an advertiser is the only seller of a product, and so has set the price themselves, it is unlikely to be acceptable to refer to the price as an RRP.

The advertising rules for the pricing of products also state that advertisers shouldn’t use “from” and “up to” claims to exaggerate the availability of a product at a given price. We apply a rule of thumb that 10% of products or services advertised should be available at the “from” or “up to” price stated in the ad, and we have upheld complaints about companies who were unable to sufficiently prove this.

We have also upheld complaints about ads that don’t make additional charges prominent and clear, such as the price of delivery or processing. If a consumer is able to collect the product themselves, delivery charges are not required in the headline price. Any statements that imply delivery is free including those that say “free delivery on orders over £50” or similar, should be avoided if this offer is not attainable for everyone, i.e. additional charges apply to certain postcodes.

+ Read more - Show less

Latest rulings

Criterion Hospitality Limited t/a Zedwell Hotels
- Not upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 04 February 2026
A paid-for Meta ad for Zedwell Hotels didn’t make misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
Mamedica Ltd
- Upheld
- Website (own site)
- 28 January 2026
A website for a medical cannabis clinic made misleading price comparison claims, failed to make the basis of comparisons with competitors clear and didn’t ensure that people would be able to verify comparative claims.
TUI UK Ltd
- Upheld
- Website (own site)
- 28 January 2026
A holiday listing featured on the TUI website misleadingly advertised prices that weren’t available to the public.
easyJet Airline Co Ltd
- Upheld
- Website (own site)
- 28 January 2026
A webpage for easyJet used “from” price claims which misleadingly implied that large cabin bags were available at the advertised price across a significant proportion of their flights.

View all rulings

Pricing and charges

Helpful information on the advertising rules for the pricing of products and services and additional charges, not including legally required costs such as taxes or VAT.

Latest news

A CAP Icesight into ads for the Winter Olympics

Don’t weight to get your gym ads into shape

Ads for mass legal compensation claims: four pitfalls to avoid (and how to fix them)

Bright Future in (January) Sales

VAT’s the Way to Do It: Get your pricing ads right

The great outdoors: keeping posters in line with the Code - come rain or shine

Latest rulings

Criterion Hospitality Limited t/a Zedwell Hotels

Mamedica Ltd

TUI UK Ltd

easyJet Airline Co Ltd

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Promotional savings claims

Prices: Recommended retail prices (RRPs)

Ticket pricing

Relevant codes