Someone Owns Tuesday · Episode 5
The ‘was’ price: a court case showed who actually paid it
Sources for the 'was' price episode: the High Court's judgment and order in the CMA's case against Emma, the CMA's own pages, the EU's price rules and the EU Court of Justice.
Sources read 30 Oct 2026 · updated 10 Nov 2026 · Watch the episode
In short
- For six months, Emma Premium was on at its “was” price two-thirds of the time (67.21%); 0.02% of units sold at it. Emma admits that cell was a breach; the court found only the breaches Emma admitted. 12:03
- Our arithmetic. The regulator wanted one in three sold at the “was” price (1 ÷ (1 + 2) = 33.3%). That cell was about one in five thousand (1 ÷ 0.0002). 12:18
- The court refused a fixed ratio. A “was” price few paid isn't necessarily misleading, if the seller genuinely believed in it, though not for ever. The guidance was paused the same afternoon; Simba's cap stayed. 12:26
- In the EU. Discounts run from the lowest price of the previous 30 days. 12:40
- Not published when we checked (30 Oct 2026, again 10 Nov 2026). Any order for Emma, any appeal, any consultation on adding fake “was” prices to the UK's banned list. 12:46
- The line through the price is a claim. This Black Friday, you're the “somebody, somewhere”. Case open. 12:52
Worth knowing
- The 67.21% and 0.02% come from tables Emma and the CMA agreed were 'broadly correct'. The court relied on them and didn't check them itself.
- Emma is only said to have broken the rules where the court records it: the breaches Emma admitted, and the countdown and 'high demand' conduct declared an infringement by consent. Everything else about Emma is an allegation or an argument.
- The £1,000 to £750 mattress is the judge's own hypothetical, not Emma's sales data.
- The price tags, countdown dial and diagrams are illustrations. People aren't named; where a quote names someone, we give their role instead.
Sources
Judgment: CMA v Emma Matratzen GmbH & Ors [2026] EWHC 1995 (Ch), 30 Jul 2026 (PDF, gov.uk)
Data both sides agreed as broadly correct: average % of time each mattress was offered at its reference (“was”) price. First Analysis Period: Original 1.36, Premium 18.81, Next Generation Premium N/A, Hybrid 81.77. Second: 48.91, 58.76, 54.10, 69.34. Consultation Period: 56.04, 67.21, 50.55, 93.41
"Average percentage of time offered at Reference Price"
Data both sides agreed as broadly correct: % of units sold at the reference price. First Analysis Period: Original 0.08 (shaded), Premium 1.72, Next Generation Premium N/A, Hybrid 24.06. Second: 3.98, 1.46, 0.37 (shaded), 3.64. Consultation Period: 4.90, 0.02 (shaded), 0.99 (shaded), 3.73. Shaded = the cells where Emma now accepts it breached the Regulations
"with the shaded cells representing areas in which Emma now accepts it has breached the Regulations"
Case details: High Court, Chancery Division, Business List; judgment dated 30 Jul 2026; hearing 3–5 Jun 2026; Case No FS-2024-000004
"Hearing dates: 3 June – 5 June 2026" ; "Date: 30 July 2026"
The CMA sought an enforcement order under s217 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 proceedings)
"the Claimant (the CMA) seeks an enforcement order under s217 of the Enterprise Act 2002"
Data periods: First Analysis Period 1 Nov 2021-30 Nov 2022; Second 1 Dec 2022-31 Aug 2023; Consultation Period 1 Sep 2023-29 Feb 2024
"The First Analysis Period ran from 1 November 2021 to 30 November 2022"
Headline pair for Emma Premium, Consultation Period: 67.21% of the time at full price, 0.02% of units at full price
"Emma Premium 67.21 0.02"
Consultation Period dates (the "six months" of the headline cell)
"The Consultation Period was a statutory consultation period that ran from 1 September 2023 to 29 February 2024."
0.02% = 1 unit in 5,000
How we worked it out: 1 ÷ 0.0002 = 5,000 units per full-price unit
The "fixed volume requirement" (FVR) the CMA wanted
"the essence of the FVR is a 1:2 ratio that requires that for every two products that Emma offers for sale at the lower price, it must sell or have sold one product at the higher Reference Price."
Core holding on the CMA's volume argument
"The CMA’s argument that use of a Reference Price is necessarily misleading if almost all sales are made at the discounted price is accordingly flawed"
The full sentence of the core holding (Exhibit A, Parts A and B)
"The CMA’s argument that use of a Reference Price is necessarily misleading if almost all sales are made at the discounted price is accordingly flawed as it leaves out of account considerations that an average consumer would consider to be relevant."
Definition of reference pricing, with the court's own example
"the statement “Was £1,000, now £500”" ; "“£1,000 £500” with the struck-through figure of £1,000 serving as the Reference Price"
Every admitted (shaded) cell is below 1% of units; every unshaded cell is 1.46% or more (apart from N/A). Why Emma conceded exactly those cells is not stated
here is our reading of the source (see the claim).
Sales in the shaded cells were insufficient
"its sales of mattresses in the shaded cells were insufficient to substantiate an assertion that Emma’s customers were willing in sufficient quantities to purchase those mattresses at the undiscounted Reference Price."
1:2 means one third of units at the "was" price
How we worked it out: 1 ÷ (1 + 2) = 33.3%. (The CMA guidance says the same:.)
98.2% of sales were of products advertised with a Reference Price (First Analysis Period)
"in the First Analysis Period, 98.2% of Emma’s sales came from the sale of products that were advertised at a discount using a Reference Price."
Decided under the old law (CPRs 2008 via EA 2002 Part 8), not the DMCC Act
"the parties agree that this dispute falls to be determined under the “old law” which is to be found in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008"
The CMA accepted "safety valves", incl. a 15% margin of error and clearance-sale provisions
"It accepts that Emma should be given a 15% “margin of error”"
Ad of 27 Sep 2021: "£637.45", "45% savings", "From £1,159.00"
"offering a particular mattress for sale for £637.45. Text above that selling price stated “45% savings” and “From £1,159.00”."
Reference price applied on 68 of 224 days; 17% of units sold at it
"priced at the reference price for all customers on just 68 of those days. Over that period, only 17% of units had been sold at the reference price."
68 of 224 days
How we worked it out: 68 ÷ 224 = 30.4% of days
The ruling and its date
"In a ruling dated 16 March 2022, the ASA found that two examples of Emma’s use of a Reference Price on its website were misleading."
The CMA's 2024 mattress guidance set the 1:2 rule after a settlement with Simba that included a 1:2 FVR
"having reached a settlement with another online mattress supplier, Simba, which included a 1:2 FVR"
Procedure: no expert evidence and no cross-examination; the judge said some cross-examination would have helped
"With hindsight, some limited cross-examination would have helped me to make some findings on disputed factual matters."
The Part 8 procedure was the CMA's choice; its counsel “made a virtue” of having no expert evidence and no cross-examination
“As I note, the CMA has brought its claim under Part 8 of CPR. [The CMA's counsel] in his opening submissions made a virtue of this noting that it meant that the court is not being presented with any expert evidence and there has been no cross-examination of witnesses.” ; para 100: “it has chosen to bring its claim under Part 8 and so has had no opportunity to cross-examine on matters of subjective intention.”
Emma accepted "Duration Requirements" but not the FVR
"Emma is prepared to accept that it should adhere to what it describes as “Duration Requirements”"
Steps Emma took: 30-day minimum at reference price from 22 Aug 2023; urgency messaging stopped from 6 Apr 2023 unless substantiated
"From 22 August 2023, it has ensured that a Reference Price had to be offered for a minimum of 30 days."
Mattress buyers wait for deals; demand peaks at Black Friday
"demand for mattresses peaking around promotional periods such as Black Friday, Boxing Day and January sales"
Consumers "educated" to expect discounts
"consumers expect that mattresses should be bought at a significant discount and will defer their purchase until a suitable promotion is available."
Waiting for discounts stems from the product's nature, not from misleading practices
"That phenomenon is not attributable to misleading sales practices of Emma or its competitors in the market that involves selling mattresses online."
The court: the waiting for deals comes “to a good extent” from the nature of the product
"The ability of Emma’s customers to defer purchases until, for example, they feel they are getting a good deal arises to a good extent because of the very nature of the product that Emma is selling"
Allegation of a "high price/high discount" strategy, citing Emma's Pricing Guidelines
"go for high-price high-discount all the time"
"I will not conclude that the CMA have made good that allegation."
Emma's explanation of its pricing strategy found plausible
“[Emma's witness]’s explanation of the “high price/high discount strategy” is plausible and has been given in a witness statement verified by a statement of truth.”
New UK practices from 14 Jan 2025; ratio flipped from 7 discounted: 1 full price (2024) to 1 discounted: 2 full price (Jan-Mar 2025)
"in 2024 Emma sold 7 discounted mattresses for every 1 mattress sold at an undiscounted price" ; "Emma sold 1 discounted mattress for every 2 mattresses sold at an undiscounted price."
The judgment's "14 times" is a ratio of ratios. As shares of all sales: full-price went from 12.5% to 66.7%, about 5.3 times
How we worked it out: 1/(1+7) = 12.5%; 2/(2+1) = 66.7%; 66.7 ÷ 12.5 = 5.33; (2/1) ÷ (1/7) = 14
Net revenue fell 40-60% in Q1 2025
"Emma also estimated that its net revenue in the first quarter of 2025 fell by 40% to 60%."
Decline after adopting 1:2 is correlation only; causation not shown (though the CMA suggested no other cause)
"That is a statement about correlation."
Proportionality: causation of decline not found, but a risk
"While I have not been able to find that Emma’s adherence to a 1:2 FVR ... caused a decline in Emma’s business fortunes ... there must be a risk that this was the cause."
No European jurisdiction imposes an FVR; CMA should ask Parliament
"It submitted that no European jurisdiction has sought to impose an FVR" ; court: "I do not, however, need to address them."
Refusal reason (main)
"I am not satisfied that breaching a 1:2 FVR, even with the safety-valves that the CMA proposes, involves a Schedule 13 infringement."
Disposition: no 1:2 order; further hearing to decide whether any order is made
"I will not make the enforcement order the CMA asks me to that references a 1:2 FVR (or similar ratio). I will hear further submissions on whether, and if so on what terms, the court should make any enforcement order."
Shoppers are not competing with other buyers
"an average consumer visiting Emma’s website is not entering a competition to “beat” other consumers by paying a lower price for a mattress than 50%, 33% or even 25% of other purchasers"
So a fixed ratio alone cannot settle whether a price is realistic
"He or she would not, therefore, consider that the question whether a price is realistic can be determined solely by reference to a fixed 1:2 FVR, or even an FVR in that approximate range."
£1,000 to £750: Day-1 buyers could feel they got a good deal even with zero sales at £1,000 (a hypothetical, para 97)
"On being told the full facts, purchasers on Day 1 could reasonably feel that they were getting a good deal."
The numbers of the judge's example: £1,000 for three months, rival at £800, zero sales, cut to £750, 100 sold on Day 1
"Suppose that Emma had offered a particular mattress for sale at £1,000 for three months, genuinely believing that that was a realistic price for a mattress of that specification. However, unknown to Emma, a competitor was, at the same time, offering a comparable mattress for £800. As a result, Emma makes no sales at all of the mattress at the Reference Price of £1,000. When it realises the presence of the competitor product, Emma discounts the mattress to £750 and markets it as “£1,000 £750” whereupon sales of the mattress soar and Emma sells 100 mattresses on Day 1 of the promotion."
...but not indefinitely
"After a period £1,000 will no longer be a realistic Reference Price."
Ignoring the trader's genuine belief is a flaw in the CMA's approach
"the absence of a consideration of subjective intention shows a flaw in the CMA’s approach."
The hypothetical in para 112 is a "real-world scenario" (based on Emma's unchallenged evidence that its full prices are good value)
"I do, therefore, consider the example in paragraph 112 to represent a real-world scenario, rather than a purely theoretical construct."
Breaches found = only the admitted ones
"Emma has committed the breaches of the Regulations that are set out in paragraphs 81 to 83 above. I will not, however, conclude that Emma has committed Schedule 13 infringements more generally than that."
The data still "raises a question mark"
"I also accept that the data raises a question mark. That data reveals a small proportion of sales taking place at Reference Prices."
Preconditions for an order met because of the admissions
"given Emma’s admissions, I conclude that Emma has committed some Schedule 13 infringements."
Hand-down time: the judgment was handed down at 10:30 on 30 Jul 2026
"This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 30 July 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives."
Timing of the next step
"a further hearing in Michaelmas Term 2026 to dispose of these proceedings and to address consequential matters"
High Court order of 22 May 2026, by consent (PDF, gov.uk)
"High Demand!" example: 6,458 views, 7 units sold
"‘High Demand During the last 24 hours this product has been viewed 6,458 times’. Only 7 units of the product were sold on that day and there was no shortage of stock."
Court declaration of infringement for the urgency conduct
"BY CONSENT IT IS DECLARED THAT: 1. The First Defendant’s conduct as set out in Appendix A to this order (the “Urgency Messaging Conduct”) constituted Schedule 13 Infringements."
A "limited-time" headline discount ran every single day across two long periods
"A Headline Discount Claim appeared continuously on every day of the periods between 13 January 2022 to 31 October 2022 and 1 December 2022 to 2 March 2024"
The same offer came back straight after each "limited-time" claim ended
"Where the same, or a substantially similar, offer appeared immediately or shortly after each Headline Discount Claim and any related Countdown Timer ended." ; "despite the fact that each of the Headline Discount Claims was described as a limited-time offer."
55 admitted High Demand instances; trigger thresholds
"High Demand Claims were triggered by either two or 500 visits to the website, depending on the version of the website visited."
55 admitted High Demand claims in 2022
"The Defendants have admitted to 55 instances of the use of such High Demand Claims in relation to the Emma Original mattress and the Emma Premium mattress between 14 January 2022 and 25 November 2022."
Undertaking: no countdown timer if a substantially similar promotion follows within 28 days; 21 days after a Black Friday Sale
"the references in paragraphs 2(f) and (g) to ‘28 consecutive days’ are substituted with ‘21 consecutive days’."
Order defines Black Friday Sale by US Thanksgiving
"‘Black Friday Sale’ means any promotion that starts before the Friday directly after Thanksgiving"
Reference pricing was left for trial
"The remaining issues in the claim (namely the Headline Discount Claims Conduct and the Reference Pricing Conduct) shall proceed"
European Commission: consumer protection sweeps
Worked example: Black Friday "40% off" should have been 14%
"the web shop indicated as prior price 39.99 EUR, marking a discount rate of 40%. However, according to EU law, the referral price should have been the lowest selling price over the preceding 30 days: 27.99 EUR. Accordingly, the discount rate displayed should have been 14%."
The full price path of the Commission's first Black Friday 2022 example: “discounted” until 2 Nov; €39.99 until 24 Nov; €23.99 on 25 Nov, with €39.99 shown as the prior price and 40% off; the 30-day low was €27.99, so the label should have said 14%. A documented case from an EU enforcement sweep (13 national authorities, coordinated by the Commission); the web shop is not named.
"In this first case, the price of the product was “discounted” until 2 November; it then increased to 39.99 EUR - the previous referral price - and remained stable until 24 November. On Black Friday (25 November), the price dropped to 23.99 EUR and the web shop indicated as prior price 39.99 EUR, marking a discount rate of 40%. However, according to EU law, the referral price should have been the lowest selling price over the preceding 30 days: 27.99 EUR. Accordingly, the discount rate displayed should have been 14%."
13 authorities, 16,000 products, 176 websites; about half showed a reduction; about 1 in 4 announcements inconsistent with EU law; violations on at least 43% of sites
"approximately one announcement out of four was inconsistent with EU law and that violations occurred in at least 43% of the screened websites."
25 countries + Commission, 314 traders; 94% advertised discounts; at least 30% non-compliant, 30% needed more information; only 40% fully compliant; 34% used price comparisons, 6 in 10 of those unclear
"94% of online traders advertised discounts during Black Friday sales period. At least 30% of traders did not comply with EU rules on price reductions, while in 30% of cases more information was needed. Only 40% of traders fully complied with EU price reduction rules."
CMA case page: Emma Group, consumer protection case
Mattress guidance temporarily withdrawn
"While the CMA carefully considers the judgment and its next steps, it is temporarily withdrawing the online mattress sales guidance."
Case timetable: launch 28 Nov 2022; consultation letter 4 Jul 2023; letter before claim 29 May 2024; claim filed 17 Oct 2024
"17 October 2024 Commencement of action" ; "28 November 2022 Case launch"
CMA guidance, 1 Aug 2024: Discount and reference pricing principles (PDF)
The 1:2 volume rule, stated as one third
"At least 1 product should have been sold at the ‘was’ price for every 2 products sold at the discounted price" ; "should be at least 33% (one third) of the total."
Four unnamed mattress firms, 2021-2023 samples
"Company A sold only 7.7%, Company B sold 1.6%, Company C sold 5.5%, and Company D sold just 0.9% of their mattresses at or above the quoted reference prices."
ASA: Consumer understanding of reference pricing in advertising (2018, PDF)
Consumer research by Research Works Ltd for the ASA: 218 respondents (2 focus groups, 18 + 6 depth interviews, 186 hall-test interviews in 4 locations). Qualitative-led; not a representative survey
"In total, 218 respondents were interviewed for research."
People assume someone regulates "was" prices and don't check them
"They felt that it was the role of ‘somebody, somewhere’ to make sure that reference pricing was accurately presented and fair to the consumer"
CMA press release, 28 May 2026
Emma case ran under the old regime; since Apr 2025 the CMA can decide itself and fine up to 10% of global turnover
"Since April 2025, the CMA can decide independently whether the law has been broken, without having to go through the courts."
Since April 2025 the CMA can also fine directly
"Where it finds the law has been broken, it now has the power to fine companies up to 10% of their global turnover, and secure refunds for affected consumers"
CMA press release, 14 Oct 2026
Wayfair fined £4.8M for false time-limited offers (Final Infringement Notice 12 Oct 2026; includes 40% settlement reduction)
"Wayfair fined £4.8 million for false time-limited offers" ; "many products remained available at the same price or lower after the stated deadline"
DMCC Act 2024, s.225 (legislation.gov.uk)
DMCCA 2024 prohibits unfair commercial practices; in force 6 Apr 2025
"Unfair commercial practices are prohibited." ; commentary: "S. 225 in force at 6.4.2025 by S.I. 2025/272"
Unfair = misleading action etc. that changes a decision, OR listed in Schedule 20
"it is listed in Schedule 20 (commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair)."
DMCC Act 2024, Schedule 20 (legislation.gov.uk)
False limited-time offers are banned outright
"Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a limited time ... in order to elicit an immediate decision"
“The new law keeps that list”: DMCC Act Sch. 20 (32 paragraphs) carries over the 31 practices of the 2008 Regulations' Sch. 1 under the same heading, reworded and reordered, and adds fake and incentivised consumer reviews (para 13). False limited-time claims are para 7 in both (the new Act drops “very”).
Sch. 20 heading: "Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair"; Sch. 20 para 7: "Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a limited time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice." Sch. 20 para 13(1): "Submitting, or commissioning another person to submit or write— a fake consumer review, or a consumer review that conceals the fact it has been incentivised."
Schedule 20 (32 paragraphs) has no entry on reference prices, former prices or price reductions. Our search of the: “reference price” 0, “former price” 0, “usual price” 0, “reduc” 0, “discount” 0. The bare word “reference” has 2 hits, both in para 5(2) (bait advertising), so it is not used as a search term. “price” has 4 hits (paras 5 and 6, “invitation to purchase products at a specified price”). On the live page on 30 Oct 2026, a find for “reference price”, “former price”, “usual price” and “reduc” gave 0 each.
In sub-paragraph (1), the references to reasonable quantities and a reasonable period of time are references to what is reasonable having regard to— (para 5(2), the only place “reference” appears)
the four counts are the ones read on the live page on 30 Oct 2026 (0 each). A screen capture of the live search may replace it before publication.
Schedule 20 (32 paragraphs) contains no entry on reference prices or price reductions
here is our reading of the source (see the claim).
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Sch. 1, version of 1 Jan 2024 (legislation.gov.uk)
The old rules already listed false “limited time” claims among practices that are always unfair: Sch. 1 para 7, in the version that covers Emma's 2021–2024 conduct
Heading: "Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair"; para 7: "Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a very limited time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a very limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice."
Simba's undertakings to the CMA, 2024 (PDF)
Also: Simba's revised undertakings, 22 Sep 2026 (PDF)
Simba undertakings (signed 25 Jul 2024): volume cap = "double" the full-price sales; no admission
"Simba has sold a number of units of Product A that is equivalent to double the Product A Sales Figure" ; "these Undertakings do not amount to an admission that any person has infringed the law."
Simba's undertakings are voluntary (2024, and again in the 22 Sep 2026 revision)
"Simba Sleep Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales … (‘Simba’) voluntarily gives the following undertakings to the CMA under section 219 of the EA02 (these ‘Undertakings’)."
CMA guidance page, now marked withdrawn: Mattresses: online pricing principles
Withdrawal notice on the guidance page, timestamp 30 Jul 2026 15:40 UTC
"We have temporarily withdrawn this guidance while we consider the High Court’s judgment on Emma Sleep’s use of ‘was/now’ pricing"
Simba's revised undertakings, 22 Sep 2026 (PDF)
Revised Simba undertakings accepted 22 Sep 2026 (published 5 Oct 2026), AFTER the Emma judgment: the "double" cap stays; price-establishment period 21→28 days; discount period now capped at the length of the full-price period (was 31 days after it began); 21 days kept for Black Friday and Boxing Day
"equivalent to double the Product A Sales Figure" ; "In relation to a Black Friday Sale or a Boxing Day Sale ... ‘28 or more continuous days’ is substituted with ‘21 or more continuous days’."
CMA case page: Simba Sleep Limited
Calls the Simba changes minor
"the CMA accepted minor revisions to the undertakings from Simba Sleep."
The CMA's own reason given for accepting the revised Simba undertakings
"On 22 September 2026, the CMA accepted minor revisions to the undertakings from Simba Sleep. The CMA is satisfied that these changes continue to address the concerns they were designed to address."
Find Case Law, search for “Emma Matratzen” (National Archives)
Has the Michaelmas hearing happened / any order been made / any appeal?
What we found: Find Case Law's search for “Emma Matratzen” returns only this 30 Jul 2026 judgment; the CMA case page was last updated 30 Jul 2026 (checked 30 Oct 2026 and again 10 Nov 2026).
EUR-Lex: Directive (EU) 2019/2161
Also: Official text of Directive (EU) 2019/2161 (EU Publications Office)
Omnibus Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of 27 Nov 2019 inserts Art. 6a into Directive 98/6/EC
"Article 2 Amendments to Directive 98/6/EC ... (1) the following article is inserted: ‘Article 6a"
Applies from 28 May 2022
"They shall apply those measures from 28 May 2022."
EUR-Lex: Directive 98/6/EC, consolidated version of 28 May 2022
Also: EUR-Lex: Directive (EU) 2019/2161; Official text of Directive (EU) 2019/2161 (EU Publications Office)
Art. 6a(1)
"Any announcement of a price reduction shall indicate the prior price applied by the trader for a determined period of time prior to the application of the price reduction."
Art. 6a(2): the 30-day lowest price
"The prior price means the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction."
EUR-Lex: Court of Justice, C-330/23 (Aldi Süd), 26 Sep 2024
Also: Official text of C-330/23 (EU Publications Office)
Case C-330/23, Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg v Aldi Süd, Eighth Chamber, 26 Sep 2024; reference from Landgericht Düsseldorf
"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 26 September 2024"
Aldi brochure 17-22 Oct 2022: bananas EUR 1.29 big price, EUR 1.69 struck through, and "Lowest price in the last 30 days" EUR 1.29; pineapples EUR 1.49, struck EUR 1.69, 30-day low EUR 1.39
"‘Last selling price. Lowest price in the last 30 days’, followed by a third price indication (EUR 1.29 for the bananas and EUR 1.39 for the pineapples)."
The "reduced" banana price equalled the 30-day low (0% off the legal prior price) while showing 23.7% off the struck price; the pineapple "deal" was 7.2% ABOVE its 30-day low
How we worked it out: 1 − 1.29/1.69 = 23.7%; 1.29 vs 1.29 = 0%; 1.49/1.39 − 1 = +7.2%. The percentage actually printed on the banana ad is in an image not reproduced in the text: UNKNOWN
The full line printed under each price box, and the fact that the banana percentage was shown in a separate rectangle whose value the court's text does not give
"The following text appeared under each of the two white rectangles regarding the price: ‘Last selling price. Lowest price in the last 30 days’, followed by a third price indication (EUR 1.29 for the bananas and EUR 1.39 for the pineapples)." ; "For the bananas, a rectangle in the colours of the German flag, partially superimposed onto the one indicating the price, specified the percentage reduction of that price."
Operative part (verbatim, full)
"Article 6a(1) and (2) of Directive 98/6/EC ... must be interpreted as meaning that it requires that a price reduction of a product announced by a trader in the form of a percentage, or in the form of a promotional statement intended to highlight the advantageous nature of the announced price, must be determined on the basis of the ‘prior price’, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article." (full text in local copy, end of judgment)
A "reduced" price cannot equal or exceed the prior price
"the selling price of a product presented, in an announcement, as being a reduced price cannot in fact be the same as that ‘prior price’, or be higher than it."
eCFR: 16 CFR 233.1, FTC Guides Against Deceptive Pricing
Zero sales do not automatically make a former price fake (the same idea the UK judge reached)
"A former price is not necessarily fictitious merely because no sales at the advertised price were made."
...but do not imply it was a selling price without substantial sales
"the advertiser should scrupulously avoid any implication that a former price is a selling, not an asking price ... unless substantial sales at that price were actually made."
eCFR version history, Part 233 (API)
Date of the Guides
"Source: 32 FR 15534, Nov. 8, 1967, unless otherwise noted." ; eCFR version list shows 233.1 amendment date 2016-12-22
DMCC Act 2024, s.226 (legislation.gov.uk)
Misleading action incl. true information presented misleadingly
"the provision of false or misleading information relating to a product" ; "information which, although true, is presented in a misleading way."
DMCC Act 2024, s.242 (legislation.gov.uk)
Government can add practices to Schedule 20 by regulations, after consultation, affirmative procedure
"The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 20" ; "Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult"
UK government press release, 9 Aug 2026
PM announcement 9 Aug 2026: consultation on banning fake "was" prices
"A consultation will launch this autumn to assess whether tactics such as fake “was” prices, invented discounts and misleading recommended retail prices (RRPs) should be added to the list of practices banned under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA)."
The Prime Minister, quoted in the same release
"If something is advertised as half price, it should actually be half price."
Budget 2026 document (gov.uk)
Has that consultation launched?
What we found: gov.uk search (since 1 Jul 2026) and the Department for Business and Trade's consultation listings returned no pricing consultation; the Budget 2026 document (28 Oct 2026) does not mention one (checked 30 Oct 2026; still none on 10 Nov 2026).
Our own arithmetic and reading
Black Friday 2026 is 27 Nov 2026 (the fourth Thursday of November 2026 is the 26th)
How we worked it out: Nov 2026 Thursdays: 5, 12, 19, 26
Why the CMA kept a volume cap for Simba after the Emma ruling
the sources do not say.
The companies' side
Emma's side here is what the judgment records: its evidence and its arguments. If Emma, the CMA or Simba responds to this episode, we'll add the reply here in full.
Corrections
None so far. If we get something wrong, the correction goes here with its date.