The claims

Otty Sleep sold mattresses with a headline price of £799.99, but they offered consumers a choice of two options when they purchased that mattress:

• Two "Free Deluxe Pure Pillows" (RRP £139), or
• £75 off the mattress price.

A note stated that only one offer could be applied per mattress and that the promotion had no time limit.

The mattress page displayed a crossed-out price of £799.99, followed by a discounted price of £724.99 when the £75-off option was selected. 

A competitor (Simba Sleep, which had previously found itself in the crosshairs of the CMA over its own discount claims), challenged whether the crossed-out price represented a genuine "usual selling price," suggesting that the presentation could mislead consumers.

Defence

Otty argued that the promotion had been running since March 2025 and provided sales data showing that some customers had paid £799.99 with pillows included. They maintained that the term "free" was used to indicate the optional nature of the pillows, rather than implying an automatic bundle.

Otty provided spreadsheets containing sales data for the product since the introduction of the "2 Free Pillows or Discount" offer, but the data was uncertain. They said they could not provide definitive figures, as their sales data did not record whether a customer had chosen to receive additional pillows or the discount. They said the mattress had been sold for a range of prices due to discount codes sometimes being applied to the final cost. Otty used the price that the customer paid for the mattress to make a reasonable assumption about which offer they chose. They said the data demonstrated that a number of customers had paid the full price of £799.99 for the product, as they had opted to receive the additional pillows.

The ASA's decision

The ASA expected to see evidence, in the form of pricing and sales data, that £799.99 was the established usual selling price of the mattress alone, and that consequently the associated £75 discount represented a genuine saving against that price.

The ASA considered consumers would understand from the ad that £799.99 was the usual selling price for the mattress, and that they could either achieve a genuine saving of £75 by receiving a discount on the mattress or opt to pay the full price and receive two free pillows with their purchase. 

The sales data Otty collected had not clearly distinguished between consumers who received a £75 discount and those who received additional pillows. Consequently, it was not possible to state conclusively how many customers had purchased the mattress alone, and the price at which they had done so. The ASA also had not received any information from Otty demonstrating the price the mattress was sold at before the introduction of the "2 Free Pillows or Discount" offer. However, the ASA understood that the offer was not time-limited and had been in place since March 2025. The mattress alone had therefore been sold at the discounted price of £724.99 for approximately six months at the time the ad was seen. Moreover, the ASA understood that during the offer period it had been possible to purchase the mattress alone for less than £724.99 because other discount codes had been made available. The data provided had indicated that a significant number of consumers had done so. 

Although the data provided by Otty was not definitive, it suggested that 66 of the 597 mattresses (around 11%) had been sold for £799.99 since March 2025, and that the vast majority of customers (around 89%) had purchased the mattress for less than the advertised reference price. 

This means the sale of around 10-11% of items at the full price is not adequate to demonstrate a genuine established price. And it seems the ASA may be creeping towards the CMA's preferred/proposed benchmarks...and may be flirting with the 1:2 ratio that the CMA is pushing for in the Emma Mattress case.

Conclusion

Given the length of time that the mattress had been sold for £724.99, and the lack of sales demonstrated at the higher price, the ASA considered that £724.99 was effectively the usual selling price of the product at the time the ad was seen. So, Otty had not demonstrated to the ASA's satisfaction that £799.99 was the genuine usual selling price of the mattress, and the ASA concluded that the reference price and associated savings claims were therefore misleading.

Because it considered that £799.99 was not the genuine usual selling price for the mattress, we concluded that the reference price and associated savings claims were misleading.

Key lessons for advertisers, 'BEDevilled' by discount claims

• Reference prices require robust evidence: If you display a crossed-out price, you must demonstrate that it reflects a genuine, established selling price. To do so, you must have:
  • sold the item at the full price for at least as long as the discount is offered (duration limb), AND
  • sold a significant number/proportion of the items at the full price (volume limb).
• ASA is inching closer towards the CMA's preferred approach: Although the 1:2 ratio is a new and novel invention by the CMA, it seems the ASA is creeping towards the CMA's 1:2 ratio (i.e. when using reference prices, for every 100 mattresses sold at the full price, you can sell 200 at the discounted price, but then you need to stop using the struck-through reference price). However, the CMA's approach is being challenged in the courts, and we'll know more about where the ASA and CMA stand in the summer of 2026). We are monitoring this closely.
• Sleepwalking into new, stricter standards?:  This case involved the mattress sector, an area of focus for the CMA, and one in which they have ongoing litigation involving Emma Mattresses. The CMA is coy about whether it wants to apply its new, punchy 1:2 ratio to other sectors, and hints that it might take a slightly different approach in different sectors - but there is very little clarity about what this means in practice, and the concern among many is that the CMA will ultimately apply this 1:2 ratio to most if not all sectors (perhaps making exceptions for perishable goods).
• "Free" must mean free: Conditional or optional offers should be described accurately—ASA takes a strict view on this term.
• Choice architecture can mislead: Presenting multiple offers is permissible, but clarity on the base price is essential, and according to the CMA's latest guidance, extra-cost-options should not be pre-selected.
• Substantiation is non-negotiable: Sales data must clearly support the claims made. It isn't acceptable for a business to claim not to gather the relevant sales data.

Final thoughts

This ruling is a gentle nudge (or perhaps a firm prod) for advertisers to ensure their promotional strategies are transparent and well-documented. In the world of advertising law, even the softest pillows can create hard compliance issues—so sleep soundly by keeping your pricing practices squeaky clean.