Which? exposes dodgy TV deals with 'was/now' pricing

How often do you buy something that claims to have previously been a much higher price? 

Probably pretty frequently. In fact, 'was/now' prices are one of the most common types of discount.

But our latest investigation reveals the truth behind these 'was' prices and exposes a string of tactics that could, in some cases, be misleading for shoppers.

These include 'was' prices that hadn't been charged for months, others that had only been charged for a few weeks and yet more that had seen multiple other prices in between. 

Which? is working to get businesses to change their practices and is also urging the government and watchdogs to put a stop to dodgy pricing.

The ‘was/now’ illusion

‘Was/now’ pricing is where retailers show a previous (or ‘was’) price to illustrate the saving that you’re supposedly making when buying a product. 

We found that a staggering 84% of shoppers* said they don’t trust or only trust a little, that ‘was/now’ pricing is a good indication of the real saving. 

And our research shows there are reasons to be suspicious. In more than half of the examples we looked at, the ‘was’ price wasn’t the one used immediately before the promotion.

We checked the pricing history of 1,617 TVs with ‘was/now’ pricing at four major tech retailers across the past year. Of these, 56% had at least one intervening price between the sale price and the advertised ‘was’ price. Some products had many more. 

The presence of intervening prices won’t always be problematic. But, in some cases, price reduction claims can give a false impression of the savings that shoppers could make by buying an item now, so they have to be looked at in their individual contexts. 

For example, the LG OLED65B46LA, 65-inch, LED, 4K UHD, Smart TV was selling at Very in November for £1,499. Its ‘was’ price was shown as £2,499, so you might think you were getting a 40% saving, which would be great... But it had also been for sale at seven different prices since that ‘was’ price – all lower than £2,499, so the real saving is less impressive. The last time the price was £2,499 was five months prior, in June 2024. 

• Find out more: how to get the best price when shopping online

Intervening prices

Very was the worst retailer in our investigation for these intervening prices – 87% of TVs we looked at used a ‘was’ price that wasn’t the most recent. 

Currys was the next worst. Three-quarters of TVs had a ‘was’ price that wasn’t the most recent one charged. Currys prints the dates of when its ‘was’ prices applied, but shoppers still may not realise that there were lower intervening prices. 

One in three TVs on AO.com didn’t use a ‘was’ price that was the most recent charged. However, AO.com publishes the dates of the ‘was’ price used and also states that intervening prices may have applied. We investigated some of these further and felt they weren't likely to mislead shoppers. 

Argos was the best of the four big retailers we looked at. All but one of the ‘was’ prices on its TVs was the price charged immediately before the promotion. 

Dodgy ‘was/now’ pricing

Here are some examples of TVs with potentially misleading was/now pricing that we found during our research:

• Find out more: best TVs for 2025

The rules on was/now pricing

Shoppers might reasonably assume that a ‘was’ price shown has to be the one used just before the sale. 

Guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) clearly says that the ‘was’ price must be offered immediately before the discount begins. This guidance is targeted at online mattress sellers but the CMA says it will also be taken into account when it considers enforcement action in other sectors.

Similarly, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) states that examples where the ‘was’ price isn’t the most recent may not be genuine. 

Ultimately, regulators and the courts must decide if a practice is within the guidelines. 

Support investigative journalism

Our award-winning investigations help us in our mission to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone.

Join Which?

Length of 'was' prices also an issue

There is also guidance on how long a ‘was’ price must be offered for. 

The CMA states that it must be offered for a sufficient period of time and can’t be shorter than that of the discounted offer price. 

The CTSI says that where a price comparison is made for a materially longer period than the ‘was’ price was offered, this is less likely to comply with its guidance.

Four in 10 of the TVs in our analysis had a ‘was’ price that applied for less time than the lower promotional price. Again, Currys (68%) and Very (53%) had the highest rates.

Troublingly, we found one third of the TVs in our investigation had both intervening prices and a promotional period longer than the higher price that had been in place. 

• Find out more: which are the best and worst shops?

How Amazon uses ‘was’ pricing

We couldn’t include Amazon in our ‘was/now’ pricing investigation because it uses ‘was’ prices in a different way. 

We found that nearly four in 10 TVs we looked at on Amazon had a ‘was’ price that wasn’t the most recent price used. 

But Amazon defines its ‘was’ prices differently than you might expect. It says that they are the median selling price paid by customers for that product on its website, excluding any promotional prices. 

We’re also concerned that the exclusion of promotional prices may mean those so-called ‘was’ prices are higher than they might have been. We believe this approach could be confusing for shoppers. 

• Find out more: online shopping hints and tips

What the companies said

We put our findings to the retailers. 

The Very Group said: 'We understand how important promotions are to our customers. For many of our products, including televisions, prices can change in line with market conditions, like when new models launch or major promotions go live. Our teams work tirelessly to ensure all of our 100,000+ products reflect the latest price points and promotions, aligning with our pricing policies. We are always looking to find new ways to improve how we do this so our customers can shop with confidence.'

Currys said: 'We have raised these findings with our internal teams and will continue to work to ensure our reference (was/now) pricing is robust and accurate. We'd also encourage our customers to make the most of our price promise, meaning if they find the same item at a lower price elsewhere within seven days of purchase, we will refund the difference.'

Amazon said: 'We strive to maintain low and competitive prices on our selection... The ‘Was Price’ is determined by the median selling price paid by customers for a product on Amazon.co.uk (excluding promotional prices), and we provide clear and accurate pricing information to customers on our product pages.'

AO said: 'We’re delighted that Which? agrees that our prices are unlikely to mislead consumers, because we pride ourselves on a transparent pricing approach and after all, customers aren’t daft. Customers always receive the best possible value from AO whether it’s through our membership scheme or our price match guarantee, which matches hundreds of online and store retailers.'

Our research

We used data from an independent provider to analyse the pricing history of TVs on was/now promotion at Amazon (140 TVs), AO (284), Argos (326), Currys (608) and Very (399) between Feb 2024 and Feb 2025. 

*The survey results are based on a March 2025 survey of 2,024 members of the public by Deltapoll for Which?. Data weighted to be representative of the UK population (aged 18-plus).