Phantom Prices: Nike Owes You a Real Number

By Harvey Specter Jr. | Law, Business & Power | PUCKA by News Beast

---

€150 crossed out in red. €89 underneath it. "Save €61 today." You've seen it a thousand times. In a Nike store, on a Lululemon website, on every retail surface designed to make you feel like you're winning while you're spending. That crossed-out number is called a reference price. And in both the United States and the European Union, using a fake one is not aggressive marketing — it's consumer fraud with a legal name.

Nike and Lululemon are now defendants in separate pricing lawsuits over exactly this. The allegation is what the trade calls "phantom discount" pricing: displaying a higher original price that the product was never actually sold at, or sold at only briefly and artificially, so that the discount appears larger than it is. The crossed-out number is the lie. The "sale" price is the price. The savings are a fiction the brand invented and the consumer paid for.

Here is what makes this worth teaching, rather than just watching.

The EU already moved on this. The Omnibus Directive — full name, Directive (EU) 2019/2161 — came into force across member states with a specific rule designed for exactly this practice. Under Article 6a, any trader announcing a price reduction must display the prior price, defined as the lowest price applied in the thirty days before the promotion. Not the RRP. Not the "original" price from a catalogue. The lowest actual transaction price in the thirty days prior. Malta transposed this directive into national law, which means the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority has direct enforcement powers over any retailer — physical or online — selling to Maltese consumers.

What that means in practice: if a retailer shows you a €150 crossed-out price, that product must have actually been sold at €150 within the previous thirty days. Not listed. Not tagged. Sold. If it was listed at €150 for two days in January and then dropped to €89 for the rest of the year, the crossed-out price in August cannot be €150. That is a phantom. That is illegal under EU law. That is the exact mechanism behind the lawsuits Nike and Lululemon are now navigating across the Atlantic — and the mechanism the EU proactively closed before it became litigation.

The cases in the US are instructive not because they'll be won or lost in a courtroom, but because of what happens before they ever get there. Phantom pricing litigation almost never reaches a jury. The brands know the documentation exists — internal pricing records, promotional calendars, web archive snapshots. Discovery would be brutal. So what you typically see is a settlement structured as a pricing policy overhaul plus a consumer redress fund, with no admission of wrongdoing and a press release that says "we take transparency seriously." The litigation is the mechanism. The settlement is the destination.

I've seen a version of this closer to home. Not activewear — retail furniture. A small Maltese consumer came to me after buying a sofa "on sale" at 40% off. The sale had been running, continuously, for eleven months. The "original" price existed only on the tag. The store had never charged it. The Omnibus Directive transposition gave us exactly the lever we needed. We didn't file. We sent one letter to the retailer's legal team, cited the specific transposed provision, attached archived screenshots of the product page across six months, and asked for a full refund plus a written pricing policy correction. We had it in twelve days. No court. No fees. No drama. The law, deployed correctly, doesn't need to be loud.

The negotiation weapon in this piece is called the documentation ambush. Before you raise a complaint — formally, officially, or even verbally — you build your file silently. Web archives. Screenshots with timestamps. Email confirmations. Promotional flyers. Every piece of evidence that shows the price you were shown was not the price you were owed. You gather all of it before you say a word. Then, when you do speak, you don't ask a question. You present a conclusion. "Based on the documentation I have, your pricing violated Article X of Directive Y as transposed into Maltese law. Here is what I am requesting. Here is what I will do if I don't receive it." That is not a complaint. That is a position. Positions get responses. Complaints get form letters.

The George Santos story