The advertising watchdog has removed a Sports Direct ad over a “misleading” RRP.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a Sports Direct advert over “misleading” RRP listings.
Sports Direct retaliated against the regulator, calling the decision “fundamentally wrong” and branding the organisation “out-of-touch”. Sports Direct is owned by LSE-listed Frasers Group, which also owns Everlast, Lonsdale, and Slazenger.
The ad, which was a product page on the website of the retailer, features a “Women’s Zipped Baselayer Top” from Puma, with accompanying text: “from £17.00 RRP £45.00 [struck through]”. Additional text underneath the price stated “UP TO 50% OFF”.
This price was not reflective of the price it was generally sold at across the market, the ASA determined. The ASA decided that consumers would understand the RRP as the recommended manufacturer price, and the price the piece was generally sold at across the market.
The ASA decided that customers would expect the RRP to be the “genuine selling price”, and would believe they were making savings against that price. The regulator confirmed that it expected to see evidence to show the product sold at other retailers at the RRP, in order to reflect that the RRP was truly the market price.
Screenshots sent to the watchdog outlined the manufacturer’s price list, which prove that the RRP was set at £45 by Puma, and had remained stable since Summer 2024.
Evidence was sent to the regulator that the item was being sold by other Frasers Group brands for £17, and by a competitor for £23.
These prices “appeared to undermine the claim that the product was generally sold at the quoted RRP,” the regulator said.
As such, the ASA found that the evidence “suggested the stated RRP was not the price at which the product was generally sold across the market, and that the RRP and associated savings claim were not genuine”.
Sports Direct’s response
Sports Direct was instructed to remove the ad, as it was determined to have breached rules regarding misleading advertising, prices and price comparisons.
Sports Direct said in a statement: “The ASA’s underlying approach to the use of RRPs, and their test, is fundamentally flawed and “out of touch” anyway.
“We do not accept that it is the valid legal test for whether an RRP is misleading or not, or that it reflects consumers’ understanding of RRPs, which have been around for many decades.”
The retailer explained that the ASA is defending its position with consumer behaviour from eight years ago, adding that “the world has moved on.”
It continued: “Its application by the ASA is to the detriment of consumers being able to find the best possible deals and the test is also unworkable in practice for traders, having to compile data from ‘across the market’ in order to establish each and every RRP they use.”
