- in European Union
- within Tax topic(s)
It is rare for the National Advertising Division (NAD) to review strikethrough pricing, but its recent decision in Renpho US (Renpho Elis 1 Smart Scale) shows that reference pricing is now on NAD's radar at the same time it continues to dominate consumer class actions. That combination makes this an area advertisers cannot afford to ignore.
Etekcity, a competitor in the home appliance market, challenged Renpho's advertising for its Elis 1 Smart Scale. Renpho promoted the product online with strikethrough "list" prices ranging from $34.99 to $44.99 alongside "sale" prices as low as $19.99. Ads also featured language such as "Limited Time Deal." Etekcity presented data collected from Renpho's own website, Amazon, and Walmart showing that the product almost never sold at the higher "list" prices, that over a 16-month period the actual selling price was consistently between $19.99 and $25.99, and that the $19.99 "limited time" deal recurred frequently and often returned within days, undermining the idea that it was temporary. Renpho responded that its list prices were consistent with Amazon's protocols and in line with competitor products, and that its "list" price was the first price at which the scale had been offered.
NAD reiterated long-standing standards that apply to reference and savings claims: A strikethrough or "list" price must be a real price, either one at which an appreciable number of sales have occurred or one offered for a meaningful period of time in the regular course of business. Advertisers cannot inflate prices simply to create the appearance of dramatic savings. "Limited time" offers must actually be limited, with a reasonable interval before the same promotion is repeated. Using the same "limited time" price repeatedly undermines urgency and misleads consumers.
Applying these standards, NAD concluded that Renpho's "list" prices were not substantiated by evidence of actual sales or sustained offering and that the "limited time" deal was not genuinely time-limited. It recommended that the advertiser discontinue or modify all challenged claims.
The broader legal landscape makes clear why NAD's action is significant. Hundreds of class actions have recently tested these issues, and 2025 has seen a resurgence not experienced since 2014. Recent settlements underscore the stakes, including $10 million for Select Blinds, $19 million for Home Depot, $50 million for JC Penney, and $197 million for Boohoo.
With escalating enforcement, a surge of consumer class actions, and now NAD weighing in, advertisers face scrutiny from every direction on strikethrough and "limited time" pricing. The mandate is clear: reference prices must reflect genuine savings, "limited time" offers must be time-bound, and federal, state, and self-regulatory standards must all be observed. Rigorous pricing compliance is not optional, but essential.
The NAD decision is: Renpho US, operated as Joicom Corporation (Renpho Elis 1 Smart Scale for Body Weight), Report #7483, NAD/CARU Case Reports (September 2025).
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
