The High Court has rejected the Competition and Markets Authority’s proposed fixed-ratio rule for mattress discount pricing in a case involving online retailer Emma Matratzen. While the judge found the company committed specific consumer law breaches, he declined to enforce a mandatory 1:2 sales ratio, prompting the regulator to temporarily withdraw its online mattress sales guidance.
The legal battle over online mattress discounting reached a significant turning point when Mr Justice Richards delivered judgment in Competition and Markets Authority v Emma Matratzen GmbH and Others [2026] EWHC 1995 (Ch). The Competition and Markets Authority sought a court order under section 217 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to impose strict pricing requirements on the retailer, known commercially as Emma Sleep. At the heart of the dispute was the regulator’s attempt to force the company into maintaining a fixed 1:2 sales ratio between discounted units and those sold at a higher reference price.
The regulatory scrutiny began with an investigation opened in 2022. Investigators examined the widespread online practice of advertising products with struck-through comparative figures, such as was £1,000, now £500
. While Emma Matratzen had previously resolved separate concerns regarding urgency messaging and duration requirements for reference pricing, it drew a firm line against the mandatory volume rule.
Admitted Breaches and the Rejected Volume Rule
During the proceedings, Emma Matratzen admitted to specific unlawful reference pricing practices. These infractions included advertising new products against reference prices that were never actually charged to customers, and using reference prices that were not actively charged immediately before a promotion began. Despite these admissions, the company contested the regulator’s characterization of its broader discounting strategy.
The presiding judge declined to impose the Competition and Markets Authority’s central enforcement demand. Under the proposed fixed volume requirement, a reference price could only be considered genuine if approximately one in three units offered had actually sold at that higher cost. Mr Justice Richards found that this blanket rule failed to properly connect with the legal definition of misleading conduct under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
The court pointed out a stark contrast between the regulator’s proposed 1:2 ratio and the actual figures involved in Emma Matratzen’s worst admitted breaches, some of which approached a ratio of 1 in 50,000. Imposing a rigid ratio across the board, given the severe turnover-based financial penalties tied to enforcement orders under incoming legislation like the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, was deemed disproportionate by the bench.
Consumer Behavior and Market Realities in Bedding Retail
The judicial reasoning relied heavily on uncontested evidence provided by Emma Matratzen’s co-founder concerning how consumers actually buy mattresses. The court noted that purchasing a mattress is an infrequent, high-value, and non-urgent transaction. Because buyers can easily defer purchases until they spot what they consider a favorable deal, seasonal discounting remains a natural driver across the entire bedding sector, independent of any deceptive practices.
Drawing comparisons with guidance from the Advertising Standards Authority and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the judge observed that low sales volumes at a reference price are relevant indicators but should not be treated as entirely determinative. The ruling established that an average consumer’s perception depends on whether the retailer held a genuine, informed belief that the reference price reflected market reality, rather than relying solely on rigid mathematical ratios that ignore subjective intent.
Broader Industry Settlements and Next Legal Steps
Emma Matratzen agreed to halt its use of misleading countdown clocks and false urgency messaging through a court-confirmed settlement in May this year. However, because the reference pricing dispute required judicial resolution, the recent High Court ruling has forced a temporary regulatory retreat.
As the Competition and Markets Authority reviews the judgment and determines its next steps, the agency has temporarily withdrawn its online mattress sales guidance. Meanwhile, the High Court has invited both parties to negotiate the terms of a further order that aligns with the judicial findings, leaving any unresolved issues for a subsequent hearing.
Keep reading
