How can advertising with discounts, crossed-out prices, RRP and percentage figures still be done today?
Whether percentages, crossed-out prices or terms such as "price advantage" – price reductions remain a central advertising instrument in retail.
However, the current case law of the ECJ, BGH and courts of appeal shows: anyone who advertises price advantages must present the relevant reference price clearly, transparently and in a legally clean manner. Otherwise, competition law consequences may be threatened.
What does § 11 PAngV actually regulate?
§ 11 PAngV obliges companies to provide particular transparency when advertising price reductions: anyone who advertises a reduction to consumers must in principle state the lowest total price of the last 30 days that was actually charged immediately before the price reduction.
For gradual, continuously increasing price reductions without interruption, the provision exceptionally allows the price that applied before the first reduction to be used as the basis, § 11 para. 2 PAngV.
Purpose of the provision
The provision has applied in its current form since 2022 and implements EU law requirements for the protection of consumers in price reductions, specifically Art. 6a of the Price Indication Directive.
Price advertising should be comparable and comprehensible. Consumers should be better able to recognise whether an advertised price reduction actually offers a genuine price advantage. Companies should not be able to advertise with artificially inflated or long-since-discontinued reference prices in order to make a price advantage appear greater than it actually is.
Because special offers, discount promotions and price reductions can directly influence purchasing decisions. Consumers are thereby specifically directed to the respective online shop, to the specific offer and not infrequently also to the purchase decision.
Price reductions are therefore particularly sensitive from a consumer law perspective. The current case law accordingly pursues a clearly consumer-protective line and sets high requirements for the transparency of price reductions.
When does the obligation apply – and when does it not?
§ 11 PAngV applies to the announcement of a specific price reduction, i.e. when a product is presented as cheaper than it was before.
Typical cases include:
- advertising with percentage discounts,
- crossed-out prices,
- "was" prices (Statt-Preisen), or
- other formats in which a previous price is contrasted with a new, reduced price.
However, § 11 PAngV does not cover every advertising statement around low prices. The provision only becomes relevant when the advertising communicates a specific price advantage.
Not covered by the obligation are under § 11 para. 4 PAngV, among others:
- individual price reductions, i.e. price discounts that are only individually agreed – for example when negotiating or when the retailer makes a goodwill concession.
- as well as price reductions for quickly perishable goods or goods with a short shelf life, where the reduction is made because of imminent spoilage or expiry of the shelf life and this is made clear to consumers.
Current developments: What the ECJ, BGH and courts of appeal are now clarifying
What companies must now observe in discount advertising under current case law
What is actually new currently lies less in the statutory text itself than in its interpretation by the courts. Admittedly, § 11 PAngV has required the lowest total price of the last 30 days as the reference price since 2022 already. However, the ECJ, BGH and higher regional courts have since significantly sharpened the requirements: what is decisive today is no longer just the question of whether the lowest total price of the last 30 days is mentioned somewhere. What is decisive above all is how the price reduction is communicated and to which reference price the highlighted discount message actually relates.
Here is an overview of current case law:
ECJ: The advertised reduction must relate to the 30-day reference price – and not just be additionally stated somewhere
The ECJ clarified on 26 September 2024 (judgment of 26.09.2024, ref. C-330/23):
In price advertising, it is not sufficient for the previous lowest 30-day price to appear somewhere. Rather, the highlighted discount message itself – such as "-20%" or "particularly good value" – must relate to precisely this 30-day price.
It therefore does not suffice to additionally state the 30-day reference price somewhere, if the eye-catcher actually relies on a different, higher comparison price.
The ECJ thus establishes:
- The actual advertising statement about the discount must relate precisely to the lowest price of the last 30 days.
- The reference price must not merely appear in small print alongside – it must also genuinely be the basis of the advertised discount.
- It is therefore not sufficient for the retailer to advertise prominently with "-20%" if these 20% are calculated from a different, higher comparison price and the 30-day price is only additionally stated somewhere.
This applies not only to classic percentage figures but also to advertising statements that particularly highlight the low price. So not just "-20%", but also formats such as "price highlight" where a price advantage is to be emphasised.
This is intended to prevent prices being increased shortly before a promotion in order to subsequently show a seemingly particularly attractive discount.
BGH: Reference price must be unambiguous, clearly recognisable and easily readable
The BGH further specified this line for German law in its judgment of 9 October 2025 – I ZR 183/24.
Accordingly, price advertising is impermissible if the lowest total price of the last 30 days is not stated unambiguously, clearly recognisably and easily readably. The reference price must therefore not be "hidden" in an optically subordinate, difficult-to-understand footnote, while the eye-catcher with crossed-out price and percentage figure suggests a much greater discount.
It therefore does not suffice to formally accommodate the legally required price somewhere in the advertising. What is decisive is that consumers can grasp the relevant price basis without difficulty. The BGH derives the requirement from § 11 para. 1 PAngV in conjunction with the general requirement of price clarity from § 1 para. 3 sentence 2 PAngV; because this material information was not communicated clearly enough, it also found the advertising to be unfair under the UWG.
The BGH establishes:
- The reference price must not be hidden or lost, such as in a small, difficult-to-understand or optically subordinate footnote.
OLG Düsseldorf: No "rescue" by stating an RRP
§ 11 PAngV cannot be circumvented by stating an RRP within the advertising instead of a previous sale price. If the consumer receives the impression that the retailer is granting a specific discount, the advertising must comply with the rules for price reductions, as the OLG Düsseldorf held in its judgment of 18 December 2025 (I-20 U 43/25).
Advertising with an RRP becomes problematic when from the consumer's perspective it works like classic discount advertising, without meeting the requirements of § 11 PAngV. What is then decisive is that the lowest actual price of the last 30 days is stated as the reference price and the advertised reduction also relates to this price.
The OLG Düsseldorf held:
- Decisive for § 11 PAngV is the overall impression of the advertising – not just whether the 30-day price is formally stated somewhere.
OLG Köln: The overall effect of the advertising is decisive
The decision of the OLG Köln of 13 February 2026 (6 UKl 4/25) makes clear: It does not suffice to additionally state the 30-day reference price somewhere. When advertising with a percentage discount or other advantage statement, precisely this highlighted reduction must relate to the lowest price of the last 30 days. The prominently advertised reduction must relate to precisely this price and be clearly recognisable as such for consumers. The OLG Köln derives this from § 11 PAngV in EU-law-compliant interpretation and expressly follows the ECJ case law.
The line of the more recent case law is clearly consumer-protective: with price reductions, it is not only important that the 30-day best price is stated, but also which message reaches the consumer. Discount advertising today must not only be arithmetically correct, but must be transparent in its entire design.
For practical purposes this means: what is decisive is not only whether the 30-day price appears somewhere. What is decisive above all is to what the eye-catching price advertising actually relates. Retailers must design their price advertising in such a way that consumers at first glance recognise which price is the relevant reference price.
Unsure whether your advertising is designed in a legally compliant manner?
Schedule a free initial assessment
Competitor advertising unfairly? – What to do?
Complying with the rules yourself while others don't?
Those who now comply with the requirements for price advertising themselves do not have to accept other competitors gaining advantages through unlawful discount promotions. Violations of price indication obligations can noticeably impair the interests of consumers, competitors or other market participants – and can therefore be legally relevant.
In practice, claims for injunction and cessation are primarily worth considering. Anyone who has the impression that a competitor is gaining advantages with unlawful price statements should have it checked at an early stage whether competition law steps are worth considering.
Do you want to issue a cease-and-desist notice against a competitor?
Contact us for a free initial assessment
Conclusion
Discount advertising must not only be arithmetically correct, but must also be transparent in its entire design.
The trend is clearly consumer-protective. Those who work with crossed-out prices, %-discounts, "price highlights", "Black Friday" claims or hidden footnotes must now not only state the 30-day price, but design the entire advertising such that the consumer immediately understands which price is the genuine reference price. This is precisely where PAngV is currently being "sharpened" by the ECJ, BGH and courts of appeal.
Anyone who wants to design discount advertising in a legally compliant manner or have existing campaigns reviewed should incorporate the current case law into the advertising design at an early stage. This applies not only to their own advertising measures, but also when competitors are gaining advantages through impermissible price advertising.
Would you like to design your advertising in a legally compliant manner or have you received a cease-and-desist notice due to violations of § 11 PAngV and need legal advice?
Schedule a free initial assessment
FAQ
1. Am I still allowed to advertise with discounts at all?
Yes. Price reductions remain permissible. Companies must, however, observe § 11 PAngV and use the lowest total price of the last 30 days as the relevant reference price.
2. Must every percentage figure relate to the lowest price of the last 30 days?
If the percentage figure advertises a price reduction, yes. Highlighted discount figures must relate to this reference price.
3. Am I allowed to advertise with an RRP?
RRP advertising is not automatically impermissible. It becomes problematic when the design appears to consumers like an independent price reduction and the highlighted reduction does not relate to the lowest total price of the last 30 days.
4. Is a footnote with an asterisk sufficient?
Not necessarily. The BGH requires that the legally relevant reference price is stated unambiguously, clearly recognisably and easily readably.
5. What are the consequences of violations?
Depending on the individual case, cease-and-desist notices from competitors or associations as well as judicial injunction proceedings are particularly worth considering. This can quickly become relevant, especially with advertising-effective discount promotions.
6. What do the courts say?
The ECJ requires that advertised price advantages must in principle be based on the lowest price of the last 30 days. The BGH additionally emphasises that this reference price must be presented clearly, comprehensibly and easily readably. Decisions from Cologne and Düsseldorf in particular show that combinations of crossed-out prices, percentage figures, RRP and best price can be legally vulnerable. For companies this means: discount advertising must not only be arithmetically correct, but must also be transparent in its entire design.
