SPORTS Direct has launched a furious attack on the advertising watchdog after one of its money-off deals was banned for being misleading.
The retail giant hit out at the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), branding its approach to discount adverts “out of touch” and vowing to fight the ruling.
It comes after the ASA banned a Sports Direct advert for a Puma “Women’s Zipped Baselayer Top” which claimed shoppers could save up to 50 per cent off.
The ad, spotted on the Sports Direct website in February this year, showed the top priced “from £17.00” with an RRP of £45 struck through, alongside the words “UP TO 50% OFF”.
Consumer group Which? challenged the advert, arguing the £45 RRP did not match the price at which the item was generally sold elsewhere.
Sports Direct insisted it had written confirmation from Puma that £45 had always been the RRP, and that Puma had sold the top at that price between February 2023 and April 2024.
Read more in money
CAR COMP
Millions set for £829 car finance payouts face being ‘short-changed’, court told
BOND ROUT
Chancellor under pressure as long-term UK borrowing costs hit 28-YEAR high
But the ASA said manufacturer price lists alone were not enough proof that the item was actually being sold at £45 across the wider market.
The watchdog noted the same top was being sold for £17 by another retailer owned by Frasers Group, and for £23 by a separate sporting goods store, undermining the claimed saving.
The ASA ruled the advert breached its code on misleading advertising and ordered Sports Direct not to repeat it, telling the firm that future price comparisons must reflect prices “generally sold across the market”.
In a statement issued ahead of the ruling, Sports Direct said it “regard this ruling as fundamentally wrong and will be contesting it fully.”
Most read in Money
CLEAR VIEW
Victory for mum as 6ft concrete wall that blocks her sea view to be demolished
NOT LOVIN’ IT
McDonald’s confirms it won’t bring back Monopoly game this autumn after 20yrs
SUN SAVERS
Four budget-friendly ways to entertain your kids if they’re mad for dinosaurs
PROFITS LICKED
Brit ice cream makers handed boost as Canada doubles tariff-free exports
The firm argued: “According to the ASA, this promotion breached the Advertising Code because the RRP did not reflect the price at which the product concerned was ‘generally sold across the market’.
“In fact, the ASA were supplied with evidence that it had been sold/advertised at the RRP, but they have chosen to ignore it.”
Sports Direct went further, claiming the watchdog’s whole approach was flawed, saying: “The ASA’s underlying approach to the use of RRPs, and their test, is fundamentally flawed and ‘out of touch’ anyway.”
The retailer also pointed to a recent High Court ruling in a case involving mattress firm Emma Sleep, arguing the ASA had ignored it, saying the court “found that the trader’s genuine belief in the genuineness of RRPs they use is a relevant factor and that a reference price can be permissible even if very few sales are made at that price.”
Sports Direct said its priority remained giving shoppers the best deals, adding: “We are focussed on ensuring our customers get the best possible value during this cost-of-living crisis, including through discounting of prices against genuine RRPs.”
The ASA’s ruling means the advert cannot appear again in its current form, though Sports Direct has made clear it intends to challenge the decision further.