The President of Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, UOKiK, has brought charges against H&M Hennes & Mauritz and Peek & Cloppenburg over the way promotions were presented in their online stores. The authority’s objections mainly concern the absence of information about the lowest price in the 30 days preceding a price reduction, or the presentation of that information in a way that may have been incorrect or unclear to consumers. In the case of Peek & Cloppenburg, UOKiK also questioned the possible use of false promotions.
Under the applicable rules, when a trader informs consumers about a price reduction, it must also indicate the lowest price of the product during the 30 days before the promotion was introduced. This information is intended to allow consumers to assess whether the advertised discount is genuine and how significant it actually is.
“We continuously monitor how stores present promotions. I would like to remind businesses that online shoppers must also be informed about the lowest price that applied during the 30 days before a given price reduction was introduced. This information should appear wherever the reduction is communicated. We are also closely examining false discounts. These occur when an allegedly promotional price is equal to or even higher than the lowest price during the 30 days before the reduction,” said Tomasz Chróstny, President of UOKiK.
Objections concerning H&M
UOKiK analysed promotional campaigns organised in H&M’s online store. For some products, prices were displayed separately for so-called club members and for other users. According to the authority, however, every customer could benefit from the offer, as joining the club required only registration by providing an email address.
UOKiK states that promotions available through loyalty programmes must also comply with the requirements on informing consumers about the lowest price in the 30 days before a reduction, where they apply to specific products or groups of products. The authority alleges that H&M’s online store may not have provided this information correctly in all cases. As a result, consumers may not have had a clear point of reference for assessing the real attractiveness of the promotion.
Charges against Peek & Cloppenburg
In the case of Peek & Cloppenburg, UOKiK examined how price reductions were presented both in online advertisements and in the online store itself. The objections include allegations that the company may not always have informed consumers about the lowest price of a product in the 30 days before the reduction, or may have done so in a way that was not sufficiently understandable.
Product pages included the phrase “30-day best price: PLN xx”. In the authority’s view, consumers may not have known exactly what this price meant or what it referred to. UOKiK stresses that price information should be clear, understandable and allow for a real comparison.
In addition, the President of UOKiK accuses Peek & Cloppenburg of organising false promotions. This concerns situations in which the price presented as reduced was equal to or higher than the lowest price that applied during the 30 days before the promotion was introduced. As an example, the authority pointed to a skirt offered with a 43% discount, where the reduced price was PLN 199.99, the earlier “original” price was PLN 349.99, and the “30-day best price” was also PLN 199.99.
UOKiK reminds businesses that a promotional price cannot be the same as, or higher than, the lowest price in the 30 days before the reduction if the trader presents the offer as a discount. This position was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the ALDI SÜD case in September 2024.
The CJEU stated that price reductions should be calculated with reference to the previous price, understood as the lowest price applied for at least 30 days before the promotion. This means that the declared discount must refer precisely to that value, not to an arbitrarily selected earlier, catalogue or “original” price.
Possible penalties for businesses
For improper information about price reductions, businesses may face financial penalties of up to 10% of turnover. The proceedings against H&M and Peek & Cloppenburg are another example of UOKiK’s enforcement activity concerning the rules on informing consumers about the prices of goods and services.
The authority also notes that similar charges have recently been brought against other entities, including Żabka Nano, Peek & Cloppenburg and Black Red White brick-and-mortar stores.
