Retailers Courts adn Prism+ Face Scrutiny Over Deceptive Online Practices
Consumers shopping online were misled by deceptive trade practices employed by retailers Courts and Prism+, according to a recent investigation. Both companies have been compelled to address concerns raised by the Competition and Consumer Service (CCS) regarding tactics designed to pressure customers into making hasty purchases.
Courts initially ignored customer complaints dating back to 2024 before finaly responding to CCS intervention in June 2025. “Courts has given an undertaking to CCS to cease this practice immediately,” a senior official stated. “In addition to making changes to its website, Courts also agreed to refund customers affected by this unfair trade practice.”
Prism+ Used Fake Urgency to Drive Sales
the CCS investigation revealed that Prism+ deliberately manipulated website features to create a false sense of urgency, prompting consumers to buy quickly. The company utilized fake countdown timers displaying messages such as, “Popular items are selling fast! Purchase within the next [timer] minutes to secure stock and avoid losing out.”
Though, CCS found these timers were entirely cosmetic. “These timers served no technical function, were not linked to any of Prism+’s inventory systems and simply reset after reaching zero without affecting the checkout process,” the agency said.This tactic aimed to exploit consumers’ fear of missing out (FOMO).
prism+ also employed misleading stock indicators, falsely suggesting limited availability even when substantial inventory existed. For one product,the “In Stock: Running Low” indicator was displayed despite monthly sales representing only 7% of the total stock on hand.
“Prism+ explained that the indicator ‘In Stock: Running Low’ is used for any product with inventory levels above 100 units,” the agency said, emphasizing that this arbitrary threshold was never disclosed to shoppers. This lack of transparency further contributed to the deceptive nature of the practice.
The CCS actions underscore a growing regulatory focus on online retail practices and the need for companies to be upfront with consumers about product availability and promotional tactics. These investigations serve as a warning to other retailers considering similar strategies, highlighting the potential for significant repercussions for misleading consumers.
Here’s a breakdown of the answers to your questions,integrated into a substantive news report:
Why: The Competition and Consumer Service (CCS) investigated Courts and Prism+ due to consumer complaints regarding deceptive online sales tactics designed to pressure customers into making hasty purchases. these tactics included fake urgency cues and misleading stock information.
Who: The key players are Courts and Prism+ (the retailers),the Competition and Consumer Service (CCS) – the regulatory body,and consumers who were misled by the practices.
What: Courts and Prism+ employed deceptive trade practices. Courts initially ignored customer complaints, while Prism+ used fake countdown timers and misleading stock indicators to create a false sense of urgency and scarcity.
How did it end?: Following CCS intervention in June 2025, courts agreed to cease the practice and refund affected customers. Prism+ was compelled to address the issues identified by the CCS investigation, and the agency’s actions serve as a warning to other retailers. The CCS is increasing its focus on regulating online retail practices to ensure transparency and fair trading.
