More than two years after the entry into force of the Product Price Display Decree ("Price Display Decree"), the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") has published its long-awaited Guidelines on price display and comparisons ("Guidelines"). The Guidelines explain the rules that apply when a company compares prices or shows discounts when selling to consumers.
As we pointed out in a previous blog, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about the precise interpretation of the rules on fake discounts. At the same time, the ACM has already taken enforcement action on several occasions against allegedly misleading price displays. The market was therefore eagerly awaiting further clarification of the rules.
Although the Guidelines provide more clarity, questions remain on certain points. Moreover, in the Guidelines, the ACM has opted for a stricter approach than that required by EU legislation and the guidelines of the European Commission (the "Commission"). In this blog, we discuss the most important points to consider.
Background
The Guidelines aim to provide more clarity on European and Dutch legislation on price indications. With its New Deal for Consumers the Commission wants to achieve a high level of consumer protection within the EU. Part of this is the Omnibus Directive, which amended, among other things, the Directive on price indications for products and the Directive on unfair commercial practices. The Omnibus Directive has been implemented in the Netherlands in the Prices Act and the Price Display Decree. For a comprehensive overview of these regulations, see our previous blogs here and here.
The Guidelines
In its Guidelines, the ACM emphasizes that consumers can only make well-informed choices if prices are displayed fairly and transparently. The basic rule is that in the event of a price reduction, the discounted price (“discounted price”) must always be compared with the lowest price that the trader has charged for the product in question in the 30 days prior to the price reduction (“reference price”). This is known as the 30-day rule. In this earlier blog, we explain the 30-day rule in more detail.
Based on this basic rule, the ACM has drawn up various rules of thumb in its Guidelines.
Rule 1: No price crossings except for the lowest price
The use of strikethroughs is only permitted for the lowest price charged by the seller in the 30 days prior to the discount (30-day rule). In other words: only for actual discounts. This price indication technique may not be used for other price comparisons (e.g. a recommended retail price or the average price in the market).
Rule 2: No false price reductions
When comparing prices (no discount), it is not permitted to suggest that there is a discount. In that case, no price indication techniques that suggest a discount may be used. Examples include: a percentage, the word 'was', a reduction with an absolute value or other equivalent expressions. It is permitted to show both a discount and a price comparison, as long as the difference is clear to the consumer.
Rule 3: No artificially inflated prices
The reference price may not be the price on which the discount is calculated, unless this is the lowest price that the seller has charged in the 30 days prior to the price reduction. It is therefore not permitted to artificially increase a reference price prior to an offer (making the discount on the reference price appear larger).
Rule 4: Clear and conspicuous information
When using recommended retail prices (or other reference prices), it must be clearly explained what the recommended retail price entails. This explanation must be included in a permanent text that is always directly next to the price (and therefore not behind an 'i' icon or hover text). When using a recommended retail price, the seller must also demonstrate that it: (i) is actually recommended by the manufacturer/supplier, but also: (ii) has been used by other sellers in the market.
Rule 5: No excessively long discounts
The ACM also addresses the permitted duration of price reductions. A price reduction is considered excessively long if it lasts longer than three months. When determining whether a discount is excessively long, the length of time the product has had the relevant reference price is taken into account.
Exceptions and specific situations
There are several exceptions to the 30-day rule (see also this blog):
- Fresh products: Products that spoil quickly or have a limited shelf life and are marked with a ‘use by’ date, such as fruit and vegetables.
- Progressive or cumulative discount: Continuous increase in discount within the discount period. In this case, the seller may use the reference price that applied at the start of the promotion for a maximum of three months.
- Introductory discount: Products that have been on the market for less than 30 days. In this case, the seller may determine a reference period, provided that the product is genuinely new.
The Guidelines also explain a number of specific situations:
- Different sales channels: Different prices per channel are permitted, as long as each channel complies with the Prices Act and the Unfair Commercial Practices Act.
- General discount: The 30day rule also applies to general discount promotions (such as "20% discount on everything").
- Platform obligations: Platforms must ensure that sellers display prices correctly. For example, a platform must refer to the laws and regulations on price indication and be designed in such a way that the price display of sellers complies with those regulations.
Strict interpretation by the ACM
In its Guidelines, the ACM opts for a strict interpretation of EU legislation from the perspective of businesses. On certain points, the ACM even goes further than the explanation given by the Commission in its guidelines (see here). We will explain this below.
Explanation of recommended retail price too far-reaching
The fact that traders are required by the ACM not only to demonstrate that a recommended retail price is actually recommended by the manufacturer, but also that other traders have actually used this recommended retail price, is a new and (too) far-reaching requirement. In this context, the ACM refers in the Guidelines to Article 12 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. However, this article only stipulates that traders must provide evidence for the claims they make. Nor is such an obligation mentioned in the Commission's guidelines. We are therefore very curious to see whether this interpretation of EU legislation by the ACM will stand up in court.
Maximising the duration of discounts
The ACM also takes a firm stance on excessively long discounts in its Guidelines. In its Guidelines on Price Indication, the Commission emphasizes that companies may announce a price reduction for a 'longer' period. Nowhere does it state how long this period may be, nor that it is limited to the three months applied by the ACM. The fairness or possible excessiveness of long price reduction periods must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, as stated in the Price Indication Guidelines.
In an earlier blog, we noted that what constitutes 'excessively long' depends in practice very much on the circumstances of the case and the type of product. In this context, the ACM rightly points out that this also depends on the duration of the discount compared to the duration of the reference price. For example, if a product has only been available at a certain price for one week and is then discounted for nine weeks, it is more likely to be considered excessive than if the product has been available at the reference price for five weeks and at the discounted price for five weeks.
It is therefore peculiar that the ACM has chosen to apply a maximum period of three months for discounts, regardless of whether it is authorised to do so. Although this period may also provide legal certainty, it leaves less room to consider the circumstances of the case and the type of product. Think, for example, of certain seasonal discounts (such as winter sports products).
Platform obligations unclear
There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the obligation for platforms to ensure that sellers display prices correctly. How far do these obligations go? Is it even possible in practice for platforms to set up the platform in such a way that sellers can 'only' display their prices correctly? We expect that this obligation in the Guidelines will lead to unnecessary discussions between sellers and platforms about who is responsible for price display and who should be held accountable in the event of a violation of the rules.
Intensive enforcement at national and EU level
In any case, it is clear that the ACM – with the Guidelines in hand – intends to intensify its enforcement over the long term. This is evident, for example, from the following quote from the ACM:
"In the coming period, the ACM will check whether companies (both physical shops and online sales channels) are complying with the rules on discounts, as explained in the guidelines. If companies do not comply, the ACM has various instruments at its disposal to take action."
It should be noted, however, that during an information session organised by Thuiswinkel, the ACM indicated that it would not actively enforce the new Guidelines for the time being. This is to give companies the opportunity to adjust their price displays (where necessary) on the basis of the Guidelines. However, it is unclear how much time the ACM intends to give companies. Moreover, experience shows that the ACM will monitor companies in the meantime, which may lead to enforcement actions in the future.
While ACM enforcement is still some time away, regulators in other EU Member States are already active.
- In July 2025, the French competition authority imposed a €40 million fine on Shein for misleading discount practices (the discounts presented appeared larger than they actually were).
- PrettyLittleThing was also fined €1.3 million by the French competition authority in September 2025 for fictitious discounts. The retailer applied discounts without actually reducing prices and without taking into account previous discounts over the past 30 days.
- In Italy, Marion was fined €3 million in July 2025 for using crossedout prices that had not actually been applied by the seller, without showing the lowest price of the past 30 days.
- Furthermore, the Italian competition authority is currently investigating Man Project for striking through a reference price that was not actually applied. According to the authority, this gives the impression that there is a discount, when in reality the clothing is produced specifically for outlets.
The ACM has indicated that it also wants to enforce this jointly with other European consumer regulators at EU level. An example of such action in the past is the call on Temu to stop using fake discounts, among other things. Previously, the ACM indicated that the European Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC) was working on a joint communication from European consumer regulators to clarify EU legislation on price indications.
The ACM has since announced that this joint communication will no longer be issued. In our view, this is a missed opportunity, as such communication can offer a great deal of legal certainty, particularly for companies operating in different Member States. Until then, companies will have to make do with these new Guidelines and are therefore warned.
Want to know more about consumer rules and read our other blogs? Visit consumentenrecht.info
Follow Maverick Advocaten on LinkedIn
