False limited-time offers: “only today” under the UWG

Item 7 of the UWG Annex concerns a false claim that a product is available only for a very limited time or only for a very limited time on particular terms. The claim must be intended to prompt an immediate decision, depriving consumers of the time or opportunity to make an informed choice.

The message can be explicit, such as “only until midnight”. The design may communicate the same idea. A visible countdown, a warning that a special condition is about to end or an allegedly short bonus period must always be assessed against the actual process.

The rule does not prohibit every time-limited advertisement. A business may end an offer where the start and end are real and the communication accurately reflects the conditions. The critical issue is the false statement about limited availability and the resulting decision pressure.

A time limit is reliable where the business sets it before the campaign and follows it in practice. The approval should state the exact end, affected products or services, conditions for the benefit and whether orders will still be accepted afterwards. The advertisement, landing page, basket and confirmation should use the same logic.

An extension is not automatically unlawful. It may follow a new and documented decision. It must not turn a campaign planned to run for a long period into a repeated final chance. A countdown that resets without a real end is particularly vulnerable to challenge.

Marketing, sales and shop teams should use one time model. Otherwise a banner with one end time, an email with another deadline and a basket without an expiry notice may create contradictory overall impressions.

The blacklist concerns more than the calendar period. Item 7 also refers to particular conditions. A saving, bonus, delivery promise or access right may be falsely limited where the condition is not genuinely available only for a very short period or the audience is misled about its continuation.

The campaign file should record the precise product or service, when it was available, on which terms and which technical rules controlled delivery. Product data, price or bonus logic, stock status, audience, territory and countdown settings can all matter.

The advertising claims self-check helps organise the claim, audience, evidence and visible qualifications. For time scarcity, the file should additionally show when the condition began and whether it actually ended.

False limited-time advertising concerns the claimed period or conditions. Bait advertising concerns primarily whether a product at a stated price can be supplied in a reasonable quantity. The practices can overlap, but they are not identical.

A genuine shortage does not make an inaccurate time claim correct. A business may state that only a certain number of units remain if the information is true and clearly communicated. “Only two left” should not be used merely as a design device where stock, advertising and ordering tell a different story.

Unexpected demand may cause a genuine offer to end early. That differs from a planned false scarcity. The original plan, data available when the advertising was released and the response when demand exceeded stock are relevant.

Not every forceful advertisement falls within item 7. A striking colour, emphatic heading or appeal to act quickly may not contain a false factual claim. The blacklist provision requires a false statement about very limited availability or conditions.

General rules on misleading or aggressive commercial practices may also apply. The articles on pressure and influence and misleading conduct under section 2 UWG address those wider questions. This article remains focused on item 7.

The first step is to preserve the exact sentence or display. Then identify the factual message a consumer receives and whether that message was correct when the advertising appeared.

When a campaign ends, the advertisement, landing page, basket, newsletter, social posts and remarketing ads should be updated consistently. Old versions can otherwise continue to create the impression of an ongoing last chance. An owner and a clear handover plan help prevent individual channels from continuing the expired message.

If the offer continues, the business should decide how the new communication is justified. Replacing the date or resetting a countdown does not explain why the earlier end did not occur. Repeated “last days” can reinforce an impression of artificial scarcity.

After a challenge, do not overwrite the historical communication. Preserve originals, delivery times, technical settings, stock data, orders and approvals. This separates the actual campaign from later explanations.

For an own campaign, preserve the approval record, planning, all versions and delivery data. For a competitor campaign, preserve the complete advertisement with URL, date, conditions, countdown, product and actual ordering option. A single screenshot without a timeline may show only part of the case.

Repeated views, different device versions, newsletters, advertising library records, order confirmations and public changes may also matter. Technical material should be kept with timestamps and its source. Do not place test orders without first considering the consequences.

The topic on injunctions and interim relief explains possible protective objectives and the role of evidence. The canonical article on the UWG blacklist provides the wider context. The appropriate step depends on the claim, audience, duration and evidence.