Beware countdown clocks and broad superiority messaging following Hammonds Furniture ASA ruling

The question

How much care needs to be taken with countdown timers and "best price" claims, and what evidence is required to substantiate comparative price and quality claims?

The key takeaway

The ASA confirmed that countdown timers must accurately reflect the full scope of the promotion to which they relate and must not imply that an entire offer is ending when only part expires. It also warned that comparative price claims involving bespoke or non-like-for-like services are high risk and may be impossible to substantiate or verify. Broad claims of price or quality superiority require robust, contemporaneous evidence.

The background

On 8 October 2025, the ASA upheld complaints against Hammonds Furniture Ltd following a challenge by a competitor. The case focused on whether promotional countdown timers misled consumers and whether broad comparative claims about price and quality could be substantiated. The challenged claims were "we won't be beaten on quality and price" and "we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can't beat". The ASA assessed these by reference to how the average consumer would understand them, rather than Hammonds’ internal intent.

The development

The ASA upheld three challenges against Hammonds Furniture (Hammonds). The ruling builds on existing principles but sharpens how they apply in practice:

1. Countdown timers must align with the true scope of the offer

   Hammonds ran a banner stating “Up to 40% off selected finishes + an extra 5% – offer ends in [countdown]”.
   The ASA found that the banner gave the impression of a single, unified promotion ending imminently when, in reality, only the additional 5% element was expiring while the wider discount continued. Countdown timers cannot be used to exaggerate the scope of what is ending, particularly where they are likely to create artificial urgency and pressure consumers into making quick decisions.

2. Broad “won’t be beaten on price” claims still require full, objective substantiation

   A separate webpage on the Hammonds website claimed, “We won’t be beaten on […] price” and “we can offer you better quality furniture at a price others can’t beat”. The ASA confirmed that general price superiority claims are treated as objective claims, not price-match promises, unless clearly explained. Hammonds conducted only seven price searches against a single competitor group, which the ASA considered insufficient evidence of sustained and robust market-wide price monitoring. Limited spot-checks against one competitor will not meet the evidential threshold for broad “best price” claims.

3. Bespoke services create a verifiability problem

Where products or services are bespoke and not capable of like-for-like comparison, the ASA confirmed that comparative price claims may be inherently difficult, or even impossible, to substantiate and verify. Hammonds argued that it could not make direct comparisons because its furniture was bespoke. The ASA accepted that this may be true of bespoke services but held that this meant the claims should not have been made at all, because consumers could not realistically verify them.

Why is this important?

The Hammond ruling reinforces the ASA's increasingly strict approach to both artificial urgency techniques and broad price superiority messaging. Even common marketing language such as “won’t be beaten on price” is treated as an objective, evidence-based claim unless clearly confined or explained. For businesses offering bespoke or highly variable services, the decision highlights that some comparative claims may be inherently impossible to substantiate, and therefore too risky to deploy in advertising at all.

Any practical tips?

Businesses should:

• ensure countdown timers relate precisely to the element of the promotion that is expiring;
• avoid broad superiority claims unless supported by systematic, up-to-date market monitoring;
• ·only make comparative claims that consumers can realistically verify from the advert itself; and
• retain robust documentary evidence in anticipation of regulatory scrutiny.

Winter 2025