16 C.F.R. § 233.1

Former price comparisons

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) One of the most commonly used forms of bargain advertising is to offer a reduction from the advertiser's own former price for an article. If the former price is the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, it provides a legitimate basis for the advertising of a price comparison. Where the former price is genuine, the bargain being advertised is a true one. If, on the other hand, the former price being advertised is not bona fide but fictitious—for example, where an artificial, inflated price was established for the purpose of enabling the subsequent offer of a large reduction—the “bargain” being advertised is a false one; the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects. In such a case, the “reduced” price is, in reality, probably just the seller's regular price.

(b) A former price is not necessarily fictitious merely because no sales at the advertised price were made. The advertiser should be especially careful, however, in such a case, that the price is one at which the product was openly and actively offered for sale, for a reasonably substantial period of time, in the recent, regular course of his business, honestly and in good faith—and, of course, not for the purpose of establishing a fictitious higher price on which a deceptive comparison might be based. And the advertiser should scrupulously avoid any implication that a former price is a selling, not an asking price (for example, by use of such language as, “Formerly sold at $______”), unless substantial sales at that price were actually made.

(c) The following is an example of a price comparison based on a fictitious former price. John Doe is a retailer of Brand X fountain pens, which cost him $5 each. His usual markup is 50 percent over cost; that is, his regular retail price is $7.50. In order subsequently to offer an unusual “bargain”, Doe begins offering Brand X at $10 per pen. He realizes that he will be able to sell no, or very few, pens at this inflated price. But he doesn't care, for he maintains that price for only a few days. Then he “cuts” the price to its usual level—$7.50—and advertises: “Terrific Bargain: X Pens, Were $10, Now Only $7.50!” This is obviously a false claim. The advertised “bargain” is not genuine.

(d) Other illustrations of fictitious price comparisons could be given. An advertiser might use a price at which he never offered the article at all; he might feature a price which was not used in the regular course of business, or which was not used in the recent past but at some remote period in the past, without making disclosure of that fact; he might use a price that was not openly offered to the public, or that was not maintained for a reasonable length of time, but was immediately reduced.

(e) If the former price is set forth in the advertisement, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology such as “Regularly,” “Usually,” “Formerly,” etc., the advertiser should make certain that the former price is not a fictitious one. If the former price, or the amount or percentage of reduction, is not stated in the advertisement, as when the ad merely states, “Sale,” the advertiser must take care that the amount of reduction is not so insignificant as to be meaningless. It should be sufficiently large that the consumer, if he knew what it was, would believe that a genuine bargain or saving was being offered. An advertiser who claims that an item has been “Reduced to $9.99,” when the former price was $10, is misleading the consumer, who will understand the claim to mean that a much greater, and not merely nominal, reduction was being offered. [Guide I]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Antonio Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp., 718 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013).
Antonio Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp., 718 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Civil Code § 1770 (a)(13) (CLRA); 16 C.F.R. § 233.1 (a) (Federal Trade Commission regulations).”
Shaulis v. Nordstrom Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 40 (D. Mass. 2015). · cites it 2× “” See 16 C.F.R. §§ 233.1 , 233.2; see Rubenstein v.”
B. Sanfield, Inc. v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 168 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “al of advertising a reduction in a product’s former price when the former price is fictitious; and it poses a similar question for the purpose of assessing whether the regular price is bona fide — has the seller in good faith offered the item at the regular price openly and…”
B. Sanfield, Inc. v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 258 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “The second is 16 C.F.R. § 233.1 , issued by the Federal Trade Commission under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.”
Linda Rubenstein v. Neiman Marcus Grp., 687 F. App'x 564 (9th Cir. 2017). “She also alleged that Neiman Marcus’s conduct violated the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Against Deceptive Pricing (FTC Guides), 16 C.F.R. §§ 233.1 and 233.2(c). Rubenstein appeals the district court’s dismissal of her second amended complaint with prejudice for failure to…”
Inst. for Truth in Mktg. v. Total Health Network Corp., 321 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§ 45 (a)(1) ; see also 16 C.F.R. §§ 233.1 , 233.3, but "[t]he [FTC] Act nowhere purports to confer upon private individuals, either consumers or business competitors, a right of action to enjoin the practices prohibited by the Act or to obtain damages following the commission of…”
Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp., 307 F.R.D. 508 (C.D. Cal. 2015). “” 16 C.F.R. § 233.1 (a). A former price may be fictitious or not bona fide, if “an artificial .”
B. Sanfield, Inc. v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 76 F. Supp. 2d 868 (N.D. Ill. 1999). “” 16 C.F.R. § 233.1 (b). As the court has already found in the context of the state regulation, Finlay did not establish its regular prices in good faith.”
Juan C. Rojas v. Marvin R. Ellison (Del. Ch. 2019). “”18 On September 10 and 11, 2015, the parties in the Spann action entered into a Memorandum of Settlement that “included continued oversight of the Company’s 14 Id.”
Sarkhan Nabiyev v. Closet World, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2023). “See 16 C.F.R. § 233.1 (“Former price comparisons”).”
Jerome's Furniture Warehouse v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2021). “) By falsely inflating regular prices, it misrepresents discounts 27 that do not, in fact, exist and which represent a false discount under the regulations of the 28 Federal Trade Commission, 16 C.F.R. § 233.1 (a) and 16 C.F.R. § 233.”
Akinmeji v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (D. Maryland 2019). “First, they concerned a different FTC Guide: 16 C.F.R. §§ 233.1 , 233.2(c).3 See Rubenstein, 687 Fed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.