All
All
Parallel
Title
Appellant
Respondent
Lawyer
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant.
Let's chat.
Log in
Sign Up
Select Country
India
UK
&
Ireland
AMICUS AI
CaseIQ
Keyword Research
Parallel Search
Browse
Commentaries
Columns
My Project
New chat
Federal
U.S. Supreme Court
Federal Circuit
1st Circuit
2d Circuit
3d Circuit
4th Circuit
5th Circuit
6th Circuit
7th Circuit
8th Circuit
9th Circuit
10th Circuit
11th Circuit
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Board of Immigration Appeals
Special Courts
Bankruptcy
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District Of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Northern Mariana Islands
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
16 C.F.R. § 233.2 : Commercial Practices — FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION — GUIDES AND TRADE PRACTICE RULES — GUIDES AGAINST DECEPTIVE PRICING — Retail price comparisons; comparable value comparisons
Text
(a)
Another commonly used form of bargain advertising is to offer goods at prices lower than those being charged by others for the same merchandise in the advertiser's trade area (the area in which he does business). This may be done either on a temporary or a permanent basis, but in either case the advertised higher price must be based upon fact, and not be fictitious or misleading. Whenever an advertiser represents that he is selling below the prices being charged in his area for a particular article, he should be reasonably certain that the higher price he advertises does not appreciably exceed the price at which substantial sales of the article are being made in the area-that is, a sufficient number of sales so that a consumer would consider a reduction from the price to represent a genuine bargain or saving. Expressed another way, if a number of the principal retail outlets in the area are regularly selling Brand X fountain pens at $10, it is not dishonest for retailer Doe to advertise: "Brand X Pens, Price Elsewhere $10, Our Price $7.50".
(b)
The following example, however, illustrates a misleading use of this advertising technique. Retailer Doe advertises Brand X pens as having a "Retail Value $15.00, My Price $7.50," when the fact is that only a few small suburban outlets in the area charge $15. All of the larger outlets located in and around the main shopping areas charge $7.50, or slightly more or less. The advertisement here would be deceptive, since the price charged by the small suburban outlets would have no real significance to Doe's customers, to whom the advertisement of "Retail Value $15.00" would suggest a prevailing, and not merely an isolated and unrepresentative, price in the area in which they shop.
(c)
A closely related form of bargain advertising is to offer a reduction from the prices being charged either by the advertiser or by others in the advertiser's trade area for other merchandise of like grade and quality-in other words, comparable or competing merchandise-to that being advertised. Such advertising can serve a useful and legitimate purpose when it is made clear to the consumer that a comparison is being made with other merchandise and the other merchandise is, in fact, of essentially similar quality and obtainable in the area. The advertiser should, however, be reasonably certain, just as in the case of comparisons involving the same merchandise, that the price advertised as being the price of comparable merchandise does not exceed the price at which such merchandise is being offered by representative retail outlets in the area. For example, retailer Doe advertises Brand X pen as having "Comparable Value $15.00". Unless a reasonable number of the principal outlets in the area are offering Brand Y, an essentially similar pen, for that price, this advertisement would be deceptive. [Guide II]
16 C.F.R. § 233.2
×