Ahead of that, we asked experts to explain what retailers can and cannot do when it comes to offering discounts. Be warned: it\u2019s complicated, so ministers have a job on their hands.<\/p>\n
Deceptive pricingIf the CMA finds a retailer has misled customers it can impose a penalty and force it to issue refunds. Photograph: Jim Holden\/Alamy<\/p>\n
The good news is that the 2024 Act already prohibits \u201cunfair commercial practices\u201d by retailers, including misleading actions and omissions, so deceptive pricing tactics are already often illegal.<\/p>\n
Such practices are policed by regulators, including the Competition and Markets Authority<\/a> (CMA) and by Trading Standards.<\/p>\n If the CMA finds a retailer has misled customers, it is able to issue a financial penalty of up to 10% of a company\u2019s global turnover and force it to issue refunds, without going to court.<\/p>\n But currently, to bring enforcement action about dodgy discounts, the CMA needs to meet certain legal thresholds \u2013 and that is not always easy.<\/p>\n The regulator must go through an internal process to decide whether or not the retailer influenced the average consumer to take a decision other than the one they would otherwise have taken. That means demonstrating that a misleading price has affected a shopper\u2019s choice about whether to buy something.<\/p>\n This process can be time-consuming and costly, says Sue\u00a0Davies, head of consumer rights policy at Which?, the consumer organisation. CMA investigations, for example, typically take three to six months, and can take even longer.<\/p>\n So the government is keen to add egregious and false discount claims to the existing list of 32 practices that are banned under the act.<\/p>\n That would ensure that deceptive pricing tactics would automatically be considered unfair in all circumstances \u2013 whether or not they had influenced anyone\u2019s shopping choices.<\/p>\n In theory, this would make it easier for the CMA and trading standards to protect consumers, and deter businesses from doing it in the first place.<\/p>\n \u201cIt just makes it more straightforward for them to be able to pursue a case rather than having to go through more complicated legal arguments and provide a lot of evidence in order to make the case that something is misleading,\u201d says Davies.<\/p>\n \u2018Was \u00a330, now \u00a315\u2019Most products offered in Black Friday deals are cheaper or the same price at other times of the year. Photograph: Tolga Akmen\/AFP\/Getty<\/p>\n Late last year, research by Which? looked at 175 Black Friday offers from eight retailers and found that\u00a0the vast majority of the products were cheaper than, or the\u00a0same price as, at other times of\u00a0the year.<\/p>\n Davies says the consumer organisation has on numerous occasions \u201cexposed businesses, including trusted household brands, ripping off customers with dodgy deals that aren\u2019t what they seem\u201d.<\/p>\n In the past, government guidance<\/a> stated that retailers should sell an item for at least 28 consecutive days at a higher price before they could use that figure as a reference price when discounting it. And it must have been offered at that price during the previous six months.<\/p>\n Under the 2024 Act, \u201cretailers are free to set their pricing, and it\u2019s the intention behind that which really makes a difference\u201d, says Hafsah Nawaz, a lawyer at A&O Shearman who specialises in competition law.<\/p>\n She adds: \u201cIt\u2019s not about telling retailers what prices to charge, but about ensuring that the way prices or discounts are presented doesn\u2019t deceive shoppers.\u201d<\/p>\n As a result, some retailers will test the law and see what they can get away with, says Davies.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve repeatedly found problems with misleading price practices across a whole range of different retailers, and it can be very difficult to get action taken against those [by regulators],\u201d she adds. \u201cAnd I think part of that is that there\u2019s not enough clarity about what is illegal or not.\u201d<\/p>\n She thinks that putting specific pricing practices, such as the use of misleading RRPs, on a banned practices list \u201cwould send a much clearer message to businesses about what they have to do to comply\u201d.<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a>Free newsletter | Every weekday<\/p>\n Sign up to Business Today<\/p>\n Get set for the working day \u2013 we’ll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n But, she adds, \u201cthe wording is going to have to be thought out carefully\u2026 It\u2019s not a simple thing to word it, because there will always be loopholes\u201d.<\/p>\n Good practiceExamples of bad practice include selling at the higher reference price for a shorter length of time than the discount price. Photograph: Tartezy\/Getty<\/p>\n To help retailers better understand and stick to their obligations under consumer law, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) has guidance<\/a> about how to describe discounts. This guidance is not legally binding \u2013 but regulators, including the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the CMA, regularly refer to it when making decisions.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1788673472_956_500.jpg\")
<\/p>\n