Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 AUGUST 2026

Client Alert Reference Pricing: High Court Ruling Grants Greater Flexibility To Traders

The High Court has rejected the Competition and Markets Authority's attempt to impose a fixed volume ratio requirement on reference pricing, ruling that volume alone cannot determine whether a pricing strategy misleads consumers. This landmark decision introduces new considerations around traders' subjective beliefs and market characteristics, fundamentally reshaping how regulators can enforce consumer protection law in the era of was/now pricing.

United KingdomConsumer Protection

What has happened?

The High Court has declined to impose an obligation on Emma Sleep, the online mattress retailer, requiring it to agree that, for every one product sold at the full price, it will sell only two at the discounted price (a 1:2 fixed volume ratio – FVR). The court considered that volume alone cannot determine whether a reference price is misleading and therefore potentially in breach of consumer protection law. Even a very low FVR might be acceptable, depending on the countervailing circumstances. It means that traders will have more flexibility with this aspect of reference pricing.

How did the claim arise?

The ruling was made in the context of enforcement action by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) against Emma Sleep for various breaches of consumer protection law. Emma Sleep admitted most of the claims made against it, leaving the court only to decide the FVR issue. The ruling is therefore a small—but important—victory for the company. While it was made

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from