Online retailers Very and Debenhams have been told to make sure future savings claims in adverts are not misleading.
Starting with Very, two pages on the Very website, www.very.co.uk, seen on 10 February 2026, displayed a product page for the “Stiletto Ceramic Top Coffee Table – White” and featured the text “£129 (Save £150)”. Crossed through text underneath stated “£279”.
A second product page for the “New Rubberwood Fixed Top 100 cm Kentucky Dining Table + 4 Chairs – White” featured the text “£299 (Save £50)”. Crossed through text underneath stated “£349”.
Which?, the consumer protection group, challenged whether the reference prices and associated savings claims in both ads were misleading.
Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very explained the discounting period and provided a spreadsheet setting out the pricing and sales history for the products featured in the ads between August 2025 and February 2026. They accepted that the “was/now” prices seen in the ads on 10 February 2026 were not compliant with the CAP Code and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute’s (CTSI) Guidance for Traders on Pricing Practices.
Following an investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), it upheld the claim stating that because the “was” prices featured in the ads did not represent the genuine established usual selling prices of the featured products, it concluded that the reference prices and associated savings claims in the ads were misleading.
“We told Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very to ensure that future savings claims did not mislead and that they substantiated any savings claims against the usual selling price of the product,” the ASA said.
Moving to Debenhams, this ruling forms part of a wider group of investigations on Black Friday price promotions. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.
One part of the advert, seen on 29 November 2025, showed two product images side by side on a white background. The left image showed a bed with a green bed frame and white bedding, with a red label in the top-left corner that stated, “-44%”. Underneath, a price was shown as “£349.00” in red, and on a later frame “£619.00” appeared in black with a line through it.
In the next frame, a neon-style sign near the top displayed the words “BLACK FRIDAY”. Large white text in the centre stated “HOME”, with a button underneath labelled “SHOP NOW”. The web address “debenhams.com” appeared along the bottom of the ad.
The ASA challenged whether the crossed-out reference prices and associated savings claims were misleading.
In response, DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams said they operated as a marketplace provider and acted only as an agent for third-party sellers marketing and selling products through their website. They said the products in question were sold and delivered by those third parties, and that contracts of sale were formed directly between the customer and the relevant seller.
Third-party sellers were responsible for setting their own prices, and Debenhams did not set, facilitate or control the pricing or discounting of products uploaded through their seller portal. On that basis, they said they were not a joint advertiser in this context. They added that, under their terms and conditions, each seller was required to comply with applicable pricing legislation, which they had expressly agreed to.
The ASA acknowledged Debenhams’ explanation but held the claim stating: “Because we had not seen evidence that the savings claims made represented a genuine saving against the usual selling price of the products, we concluded the ads were misleading.
“We told DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams to ensure that their future savings claims did not mislead and were substantiated against the usual selling price of the products.”
