Recommended prices and strikethrough pricing: When comparisons mislead

For announced price reductions on goods, section 9a of the Austrian Price Marking Act applies. Anyone announcing a reduction must at the same time indicate the lowest price applied to the same goods in the same sales channel during the preceding 30 days. This reference value is a statutory comparison price and must not be confused with a freely chosen advertising figure. The provision does not extend to services.

Section 2 UWG remains decisive for the overall impression. A price comparison is misleading where incorrect information or an ambiguous presentation is capable of causing a market participant to make a transactional decision that would not otherwise have been made. Strikethrough prices, percentages, footnote qualifiers and combinations of several reference values must therefore be assessed as one integrated impression.

A manufacturer recommended retail price is not a reduction within the meaning of section 9a. It is market information about the end price suggested by the manufacturer. Advertisers relying on this reference should be able to prove that the recommendation currently exists, is genuinely intended and is actually observed in the relevant market. A purely arithmetic figure without market anchoring will not usually support the claim.

The reference value for an announced reduction is the lowest price actually asked for the goods in the same sales channel during the preceding 30 days. A physical shop, an online store and a marketplace channel are separate. An online reduction cannot rely without more on a higher in-store price as its reference. The price history must be reconstructable in full from point-of-sale systems, shop databases and screenshots of live states.

For progressive reductions the reference value remains the lowest price applied before the first announcement of the reduction within the reference window. A second or third markdown may continue to display that starting value and does not have to be recalculated against a subsequent reduced price. What matters is that a coherent promotion period exists and that the individual reduction steps are documented cleanly.

If the goods have been on the market for less than 30 days, the lowest price applied during that shorter period takes the place of the full window. A narrow exception exists for rapidly perishable goods where the reduction is granted solely because the best-before date expires. This exception does not cover general clearance or seasonal campaigns and must be recognisable from the goods type and stated reason.

A recommended retail price is a suggestion made by the manufacturer to the trade. Advertisers using it as a benchmark should be able to prove that the recommendation is in force during the campaign period. Manufacturer price lists, price portal exports and binding supplier confirmations belong in the approval file. The relevant reference is the recommendation applicable at the time of the advertisement, not an outdated catalogue value or an estimated figure.

The market anchor must also be robust. Where goods are regularly sold well below the recommendation, a comparison with the recommended price may communicate a saving that is not real. Austrian case law asks whether the recommendation is genuinely made and observed in the relevant market. Purely aspirational or negotiation figures will not support the comparison and may be misleading under section 2 UWG.

Recommended-price advertising and strikethrough advertising should be clearly separated within the same asset. “Compared to RRP” with the manufacturer figure differs from “formerly at our shop” with the trader own previous price, and both differ from an announced reduction under section 9a. Displaying more than one reference value is permitted where source, period and channel of each figure are immediately visible and the statements do not contradict one another.

A strikethrough figure without further wording may be read as an own former price, a recommended retail price or an announced reduction. The overall impression rarely carries that ambiguity. The struck-through value should therefore be attributed in words. “Formerly here”, “manufacturer RRP” or “30 days ago” are short but effective attributions provided the same wording appears in body copy, on the landing page and in any pricing table.

Channel and format also shape what can be recognised. Packaging, short search advertisements and social media tiles leave little space for a precise qualifier. A remote footnote in the terms and conditions cannot reliably correct an unqualified strikethrough claim in the main visual. Landing pages should therefore display the reference value, channel attribution and promotion period as close to the advertised price as possible.

The advertising claims self-check helps organise claim type, audience and visible qualifications. For a price comparison it should also be recorded whether the reference relates to section 9a, to a recommended retail price or to a further market benchmark, and where this attribution appears in the visible advertisement.

In decision 4 Ob 226/22x the Austrian Supreme Court confirmed that section 9a of the Price Marking Act regulates the permissible reference value for an announced reduction on goods and that no general duty may be inferred to state a specific promotion period in every advertisement. The decision offers helpful practical clarity but still requires that the reference value and the overall impression are defensible.

For everyday practice two consequences follow. First, the displayed reference price must correspond to the actual price history and be traceable from documentation. Second, the overall impression of the advertising must not suggest a permanent or unlimited special reduction where the price level and market anchor do not support that reading.

To keep the chosen reference value traceable, the advertiser should maintain price history, channel attribution, promotion start and internal approval systematically. The decision confirms creative freedom but does not replace a solid file or careful editorial coordination between marketing, sales and pricing responsibilities.

A defensible price comparison begins with the price history. For each item and each channel, the price actually applied on each day should be verifiable. Point-of-sale systems, shop databases, marketplace logs and screenshots of promotional states form the underlying dataset. From this data the lowest price of the preceding 30 days can be derived automatically and recorded for the moment when a reduction is announced.

The file is completed by a channel log, promotion plan, approval steps and marketing versions. Where an internal price list, a landing page and a search advertisement are used, the version, responsible person and approval date should be recorded. For progressive reductions the starting value before the first announcement and the sequence of markdown steps must be documented separately so the overall impression can be explained later.

After a challenge, preserve the complete letter, service date and every advertising version mentioned. The article on a UWG cease and desist letter from a competitor or association covers the separate assessment of claim, undertaking and evidence. For possible interim relief, the topic on injunctions and interim relief maps risk of repetition and protective objective.