ASA upholds complaint against Sports Direct over RRP claim

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint against Sports Direct over the use of a recommended retail price (RRP), as the retailer's parent company Frasers Group continues to challenge the regulator’s approach to price comparisons.

The ruling relates to a Puma Women’s Zipped Baselayer Top advertised on the Sports Direct website in February at 17 pounds, against a struck-through RRP of 45 pounds and with the claim “Up to 50 percent off”.

Consumer group Which? challenged whether the 45 pound RRP reflected the price at which the product was generally sold. Sports Direct provided evidence from Puma confirming the RRP had been 45 pounds, including manufacturer price lists and evidence of the product being sold at 45 pounds on Puma’s website.

However, the ASA said a manufacturer-set RRP was not enough to demonstrate that the product was generally sold at that price across the market. It also noted evidence that the product was available for 17 pounds at another Frasers-owned retailer and 23 pounds at another sporting goods retailer.

The regulator concluded that the RRP did not reflect the product’s general market price and that the associated savings claim was misleading. It told Sports Direct not to use the advertisement again in its current form.

The ruling comes days after Frasers called on the ASA to reconsider its wider approach to RRPs. In a letter dated August 28, chief financial officer Chris Wootton argued that the regulator’s “generally sold” test was impractical and could make it harder for retailers to promote genuine discounts.

Following the ruling, Sports Direct said it regarded the decision as “fundamentally wrong” and would contest it fully. The retailer claimed that the ASA had ignored evidence that the product had been sold at the RRP and repeated its concerns that the regulator’s approach could restrict legitimate discounting.

Frasers has also pointed to the recent High Court ruling in the Emma Sleep case, arguing that regulators should consider whether a reference price is genuine and realistic, instead of whether products are generally sold at that price across the market.