Introduction
Price advertising is a central element of modern sales strategies and a proven tool for attracting consumers' attention and creating incentives to buy. Percentage discounts, crossed-out prices, limited-time offers, and references to recommended retail prices are among the most widely used advertising methods in brick-and-mortar retail and online shopping. Precisely because price advertising creates an immediate incentive to buy, it is subject to strict legal requirements.
The legislator wants to ensure that consumers can make decisions based on accurate and transparent information. Incorrect or unclear information about price advantages is likely to distort competition and disadvantage market participants. In recent years, the requirements of the Price Indication Regulation (PAngVO) and the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) have been significantly clarified by case law. The latest decisions of various courts make it clear that the requirements for transparency, accuracy, and comparability of price advertising are continuing to increase.
Legal basis
The legal basis for price advertising is primarily the provisions of the PAngVO, which was comprehensively reformed in May 2022 in implementation of the EU Omnibus Directive. Section 11 (1) PAngVO is particularly significant, as it stipulates that price reductions in relation to the company's own previous prices must be based on the lowest total price of the last 30 days. The aim is to prevent so-called "moon prices," i.e., artificially high initial prices that are introduced for a short time before the discount campaign in order to make the price reduction appear larger. In addition, the transparency requirements of Sections 5 and 5a of the UWG play a central role. Price advertising must not be misleading, either through inaccurate statements or by concealing essential information, and it must enable consumers to correctly assess the price advantages.
-30% without explanation on food
Case law makes it clear that these principles must be strictly implemented not only in theory but also in the specific design of advertising. An example of this is provided by the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg of August 5, 2025, which deals with price reductions for perishable foodstuffs. The court clarified that in such cases, not only the price reduction itself, but also the reason for the reduction must be clearly indicated. A red sticker with "-30%" on a piece of cheese that is about to reach its best-before date is not sufficient, as the consumer cannot recognize without a clear indication that the discount is due to the imminent unsaleability of the product. This clarification of the exemption provisions in § 9 (1) No. 3 PAngVO and § 11 (4) No. 2 PAngVO shows that transparency is also mandatory when the price advantage is objectively justified. The reason must be obvious in order to avoid misconceptions, such as that it is a marketing campaign or a change in the product range.
Two decisions relating to promotions on Amazon
While this case concerned the addition of information to a price indication, the focus in the case of temporary discount promotions is on the time component. On April 14, 2025, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court ruled that it constitutes anti-competitive misleading advertising if a promotional price advertised as being limited in time under the name "Black Friday Week" is maintained unchanged after the promotion has ended. Consumers associate such a time limit with the expectation that the price will rise again afterwards. If this expectation is disappointed, the time limit becomes a mere advertising device with no factual basis – and thus a deception about the actual pricing. This ruling follows the established line that time limits must not be misused to create artificial pressure to make a decision without the announced conditions actually changing.
Another area in which case law has recently drawn clear boundaries is comparative prices in discount campaigns. On July 14, 2025, the Munich Regional Court I emphasized in a decision on Amazon's "Prime Deal Days" that in the case of own price reductions, the lowest price of the last 30 days is always decisive. Amazon had advertised using both the manufacturer's recommended retail price and a so-called "average selling price" as a comparison value. Both variants are inadmissible if the advertising visually or linguistically gives the impression that the discount relates to the price previously charged by the supplier itself. The court clarified that Section 11(1) PAngVO is specifically intended to protect against excessive reference prices that make the price advantage appear greater than it actually is.
RRPs that are not (seriously) demanded
A classic example in this area can be found in the recent ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main of December 12, 2024, which dealt with so-called "moon prices" when stating an RRP. A manufacturer of cosmetic products had stated an RRP of 100 euros, which it itself permanently undercut in its own web shop. The court ruled that this was misleading, as a recommended retail price is only permissible if it is the result of a serious calculation and can actually be considered a sales price on the market. If such a price is permanently undercut by the person who sets it, it does not serve as a realistic guide, but solely to create an artificial price advantage.
Conclusion
A systematic review of these decisions reveals a clear trend: when it comes to price advertising, the courts require strict alignment with the actual market and price situations. Consumers should not be left in the dark about the amount of the price advantage, its reason, or its duration. Price promotions must not only be accurate in terms of content, but also designed in such a way that they do not raise false expectations. This means that the reference price must be clearly indicated and documented, that time limits must be adhered to, and that objective reasons for a reduction must be clearly identifiable.
In practice, this means that retailers and manufacturers must carefully plan and document their price advertising. In the case of own price reductions, the price development of the last 30 days must be checked, verifiably documented, and the lowest total price that has been applied to consumers within the last 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction must also be indicated.
When using RRP (i.e., comparison with a price allegedly charged by third parties), its marketability must be guaranteed, and in the case of perishable goods, the reason for the reduction must be immediately apparent.
Those who observe these principles not only minimize the risk of competition law disputes, but also strengthen consumer confidence—and it is precisely this confidence that is a decisive competitive advantage in a market where price advertising is ubiquitous.
The statements represent initial information that was current for the law applicable in Germany at the time of initial publication. The legal situation may have changed since then. Furthermore, the information provided cannot replace individual advice on a specific matter. Please contact us for this purpose.