Sports Direct, part of the Fraser’s group, has responded to the ASA banning one of its ads branding the regulator “out-of-touch”.

The retailer has stated that it will be contesting the decision and considers the decision “fundamentally wrong”.

Seen on 10 February 2026, the ad in question was a product page on the retailer’s website, which featured Puma’s “Women’s Zipped Baselayer Top”. Text on the ad read “from £17.00 RRP £45.00 [struck through]”. Further text underneath the price stated “UP TO 50% OFF”.

The ASA decided to ban the ad as the RRP did not reflect the price in which the product was generally sold across the market. It had considered whether the consumers would understand that the RRP was the price recommended by the manufacturer and the price the product was sold across the market generally.

It believed that consumers would expect the RRP to the “genuine selling price” and they would be able to make a saving against that price. The watchdog added that it had expected to see evidence to demonstrate that the product was available in other places at RRP state. This was to show that the RRP quoted in the ad was reflective of the price the product was being sold at.

The ASA said it had received screenshots from the retailer which showed the manufacturer’s price list, to prove that the RRP had been set at £45 by Puma and had not changed since Spring/Summer 2024. It also saw evidence that the product was being sold for £17 by another retailer owned by the Fraser’s Group and for £23 by a online sporting goods store.

According to the regulator, these prices “appeared to undermine the claim that the product was generally sold at the quoted RRP.”

Other evidence the retailer provided included a screenshot of the product being sold by a third-party seller for £43.94 on a large ecommerce website. However, the ASA noted that the seller appeared to not have their own website and only had one of the advertised product left in stock.

The watchdog therefore concluded that the evidence “suggested the stated RRP was not the price at which the product was generally sold across the market, and that the RRP and associated savings claim were not genuine”.

It ruled that thee ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.17 (Prices) and 3.39 (Price comparisons) and told Sports Direct that the ad must not appear again in the form complained of.

Sports Direct believe the regulator ignored evidence which stated that the product had been sold and advertised at RRP.

In the retailer’s statement it has said: “The ASA’s underlying approach to the use of RRPs, and their test, is fundamentally flawed and “out of touch” anyway. We do not accept that it is the valid legal test for whether an RRP is misleading or not, or that it reflects consumers’ understanding of RRPs, which have been around for many decades.

“Its application by the ASA is to the detriment of consumers being able to find the best possible deals and the test is also unworkable in practice for traders, having to compile data from ‘across the market’ in order to establish each and every RRP they use.

It added: The specific evidence of consumer behaviour the ASA seeks to rely on to defend its position goes back around 8 years. The world has moved on.”

According to Sports Direct, the ASA has not acknowledged the recent High Court ruling in the Emma Sleep Case. An issue debated in the case was regarding whether reference pricing were “genuine and realistic” and it rejected using “simplistic overly rigid tests”.

The case found that a relevant factor in deciding this was a trader’s belief in the legitimacy of RRPs. It also highlighted that a reference point can be permissible even if there weren’t many sales made at that price point.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter