ARTICLE
27 April 2026

Price Savings And "Last In The World" Claims Fail Without Market‑wide Evidence

LS
Lewis Silkin

Contributor

We have two things at our core: people – both ours and yours - and a focus on creativity, technology and innovation. Whether you are a fast growth start up or a large multinational business, we help you realise the potential in your people and navigate your strategic HR and legal issues, both nationally and internationally. Our award-winning employment team is one of the largest in the UK, with dedicated specialists in all areas of employment law and a track record of leading precedent setting cases on issues of the day. The team’s breadth of expertise is unrivalled and includes HR consultants as well as experts across specialisms including employment, immigration, data, tax and reward, health and safety, reputation management, dispute resolution, corporate and workplace environment.
The ASA has ruled against Shop TJC for misleading teleshopping advertisements that made unsubstantiated price comparison and exclusivity claims about watches.
United Kingdom Consumer Protection
Lewis Silkin are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)
  • in United Kingdom

The ASA has upheld complaints against Shop TJC about price comparison, savings and exclusivity claims.

Two teleshopping ads promoted watches using:

  • struck‑through comparison prices based on manufacturer RRPs;
  • repeated claims of large savings (e.g. "nearly £700 saved"); and
  • claims that one product was "the last in the world" and only available from the advertiser.

The advertiser relied largely on screenshots from manufacturer websites to support both pricing and availability claims.

ASA's findings

The ASA reiterated that an RRP is itself a claim, not proof of what consumers generally pay. As watches were available at other retailers, the advertisers must hold evidence of the prices charged more widely in the market, not just manufacturer prices.

The presenters' repeated emphasis on the scale of savings reinforced the impression of genuine market discounts, increasing the need for robust evidence.

The ASA said that "Last in the world" is an absolute claim. The ASA considered viewers would interpret that claim to mean that the watch could not be purchased from any other retailer at the time of broadcast. The advertiser had not provided evidence to demonstrate that the watch was not available elsewhere. 

Consequently, the ASA found the ads to be misleading and in breach of BCAP rules on misleading advertising, substantiation, pricing and availability.

The wider context

Advertisers should review how reference prices and availability claims are substantiated before they are published. Although this was an ASA decision, there is a wider consumer law enforcement point — the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is taking a close look at both pricing claims and scarcity claims and is investigating several companies. Although advertisers may think it's worth taking the risk of upsetting the ASA, the large fine handed out by the CMA to the AA and BSM driving schools last week indicates that there are major financial implications of breaching consumer laws. If you need to review your pricing, contact a member of the team or consult our Consumer Law Hub.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More