2.8.2. Price advantages

Article 6(1)(d) prohibits misleading information about the price. The application of the UCPD to price reductions, which are subject to specific rules in the Price Indication Directive 98/6/EC, is discussed in section 1.2.5. The UCPD remains fully applicable and governs other types of practices promoting price advantages, such as comparisons with other prices, combined or tied conditional offers and loyalty programmes. Several UCPD provisions are relevant for such promotional practices (e.g. Article 6(d) on the existence of a specific price advantage and point 20 on free offers). The UCPD also applies to personalised prices (see section 4.2.8.). In particular, the UCPD continues to apply to promotional practices of comparing the price with the prices charged by other traders or with other reference prices, such as so-called manufacturer’s ‘recommended retail prices’. Traders concerned must pay particular attention to clearly inform the consumer that the indicated reference price is a comparison and not the reduction of the price charged by that trader previously. Such explanation must be immediately and readily indicated together with the reference price. This is especially relevant when using such techniques as crossed-out reference price that consumers are likely to perceive as a reduction of the price charged by that same trader previously. It is for the Member States’ authorities to assess on a case-by-case basis whether such practices are not misleading and are in compliance with the UCPD. Any use of ‘recommended retail prices’ in price comparisons should be explained. Its use could be contrary to Article 6(1)(d) of the UCPD if it is unreasonably high and unrealistic giving consumers the impression that they are being offered a more significant advantage than what is really the case. In the Canal Digital Danmark case (168), the Court clarified that a commercial practice which consists of dividing the price of a product into several components and highlighting one of them, must be regarded as misleading under Article 6(1), since that practice would be likely, first, to give the average consumer the false impression that they have been offered a favourable price and, secondly, cause them to take a transactional decision that they would not have taken otherwise, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the main proceedings (169).

← doc__table__142 · All articles · sec_2_8_2__para →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.