Direct answer
A crossed-out “original price” is not reliable just because a marketplace displays it. Under Article 111 of the Consumer Act, a seller comparing a sale price with its own former price must be able to connect that former price to a real sale within the previous 90 days, or to a good-faith offer kept available for at least four weeks during that 90-day period. If the comparison comes from an older period, the advertisement must say when that price applied.
A large percentage badge is therefore a claim that can be checked, not proof of a bargain. Save the listing, selected variant, seller identity, checkout total and dated price history; ask the seller or platform to substantiate the comparison; and use DTI Consumer CARe if a documented online complaint remains unresolved after the platform’s internal process.
Evidence and action
What is the Philippine legal test for a fake original price?
| Comparison in the ad | Article 111 condition | Useful evidence |
|---|---|---|
| “Was ₱2,000, now ₱999” using the seller’s former price | The same item must have been sold at ₱2,000 within the 90 days immediately before the ad, or offered at ₱2,000 for at least four weeks during that 90-day period. | Dated orders or receipts, archived listings, price-tracker records, screenshots from different dates, and the seller’s explanation. |
| “Last Christmas price ₱2,000” or another older comparison | If the item was not sold or offered at that price during the preceding 90 days, the ad must disclose the date, time or seasonal period when the older price applied. | The exact wording of the disclosed period and proof that the same item and variant carried that price then. |
| “Introductory ₱999; regular price ₱2,000” using a future price | The future price must take effect on the disclosed date or within 90 days after the comparison, and normally must be maintained for at least four weeks after it takes effect. | The introductory ad, effective date, later listing and duration of the stated regular price. |
| “Cheaper than competitors” | The competitor price must relate to the product or service advertised or sold during the 90-day period and represent prices for similar products or services in the locality. | Identical or genuinely similar specifications, competitor listings, locality, dates, stock status and delivered totals. |
These are statutory advertising conditions, not a rule that every product must stay at one price. A seller can change prices. The legal issue is whether the comparison used to induce a purchase is accurate and properly disclosed. Article 110 directs regulators to consider both what the ad says and material facts it leaves out. Read Articles 110–111 in RA 7394.
Fake reference price, bait-and-switch or ordinary price change?
| What happened | Main question | Best CyberCode route |
|---|---|---|
| The ad says “70% off,” but the crossed-out price may never have been genuine. | Can the seller substantiate the former, future or competitor price comparison under Article 111? | This guide. |
| A low headline price changes after choosing the advertised variant or at checkout. | Was an unattainable teaser used to steer the buyer to a higher price or different product? | Bait-and-switch prices on Shopee or Lazada. |
| A “buy one, get one free” bundle costs the same as two ordinary units. | Does the “free” claim falsely suggest a specific price advantage? | Buy 1, get 1 free at twice the price. |
| The seller raises or lowers the price with no comparison, false badge or prior accepted order. | Is this simply a new offer for future buyers? | A price change alone is not automatically deceptive; save proof if another representation makes it misleading. |
How to check whether a discount is real
- Lock the exact product. Record seller, brand, model, size, colour, quantity, warranty and selected variation. Marketplace listings often place several different variants under one headline.
- Capture the full claim. Save the crossed-out price, percentage badge, promotion dates, conditions, vouchers and the final checkout total. Include the URL and device clock or another reliable date marker.
- Find a dated history. Look for your earlier cart or order records, seller posts, archived versions, price alerts, receipts or screenshots from other buyers. Treat automated price trackers as leads; preserve their source and methodology if known.
- Compare like with like. Separate seller-funded markdowns from platform vouchers, bank discounts, shipping subsidies and coins. Compare final delivered prices for the same variant and address.
- Ask one precise question. Request the dates when the item was sold at the claimed former price, or the four-week period when it was offered at that price. Keep the reply or non-response.
A single current screenshot usually proves what the ad displayed, not the seller’s entire 90-day price history. That is why a clear timeline, repeat captures and the seller’s records matter. Preserve original files and context; CyberCode’s electronic evidence guide explains how to keep screenshots more useful.
Worked examples
| Illustrative facts | What they suggest | What is still missing |
|---|---|---|
| A seller advertises a phone case as “was ₱999, now ₱199.” Its own dated listings show ₱199–₱249 throughout the previous three months. | The former-price comparison appears difficult to reconcile with Article 111 and may be materially misleading. | Confirm the same seller, item and variant; ask whether ₱999 was a real sale or four-week offer during the 90-day period. |
| The same “was ₱999” case was actually sold at ₱999 six weeks ago, then reduced to ₱199. | The former price falls within the 90-day sale route on the stated facts. | One genuine sale can satisfy the text’s “sold” route, but other presentation or omission issues may still matter. |
| An appliance says “introductory ₱4,999; regular ₱7,999 next month,” but remains ₱4,999 for the next six months. | The future-price comparison may not match Article 111’s effective-date and four-week maintenance conditions. | Check whether circumstances beyond the seller’s control affected the later price and preserve the later listing dates. |
| Store A’s “50% off” price is still higher than Store B’s ordinary price. | That may be a poor deal, but it does not by itself prove Store A’s former price was false. | Store A’s own relevant price history and the exact basis of its comparison. |
These examples are hypothetical. A DTI finding depends on the complete advertisement, records and response—not on the size of the discount badge alone.
What must an online marketplace or seller show?
For covered business-to-consumer internet transactions, RA 11967, Sections 21 and 23 requires an e-marketplace to identify promotional offers—including discounts—and make the qualifying conditions accessible, clear and unambiguous. Online merchants must indicate the price, while marketplaces must provide an effective redress mechanism. The merchant remains primarily liable for claims arising from its transaction; marketplace liability depends on the conditions in Sections 26–27, not merely on hosting the listing.
That means a Shopee, Lazada or other marketplace complaint should identify both the seller’s price claim and any platform-design problem: hidden conditions, mismatched variants, an impossible discount path, or failure to respond after notice. Do not assume the platform is automatically responsible for every merchant’s false comparison.
How to report a suspected fake discount
- Save the evidence before contacting the seller. Record the listing, variants, seller page, price badge, terms, cart and checkout. If you bought, add order ID, invoice, payment proof and delivery records.
- Use the marketplace’s internal report or order dispute. State the exact representation and dates. Ask the seller to substantiate the reference price, correct the ad, and provide a remedy tied to any actual purchase or loss.
- Keep the case number and timeline. For online transactions covered by RA 11967, Section 24 requires internal redress before a complaint to a court or government agency and deems that route exhausted after seven calendar days unresolved. A shorter return window can still require immediate action.
- Escalate to DTI. File through DTI Consumer CARe. DTI’s official filing guidance also lists a complaint letter or form by email to consumercare@dti.gov.ph or in person for Metro Manila complainants; consumers elsewhere may use the appropriate DTI regional or provincial office.
- Request a realistic outcome. If you did not buy, request investigation and correction or removal of the ad. If you bought, explain the loss and ask for a supported remedy such as a price adjustment, refund, rescission or other relief the facts allow. No remedy or violation finding is automatic.
Copyable complaint statement
Subject: Former-price comparison for [item and variant]
On [date and time], [seller] advertised [exact item/variant] as “[exact wording],” showing a former price of ₱[amount] and a sale price of ₱[amount]. I preserved the listing, URL, seller identity, selected variant, checkout total and dated price records. The records I have show [brief factual timeline]. Please identify when this same item was sold at the claimed former price during the preceding 90 days, or the four-week period when it was offered at that price; correct the advertisement if the comparison cannot be substantiated; and [state the purchase remedy requested, if any]. My platform complaint number is [number].
Use facts rather than “scam.” If your concern is that the price changed at checkout or the seller offered a different product, use the bait-and-switch guide instead.
Checklist for sellers running a discount
- Keep records showing the item, variant, dates, quantity and actual or offered former price.
- Choose the correct comparison: your former price, a future regular price or a representative competitor price. Do not mix them.
- Disclose an older comparison’s date, time or seasonal period when it falls outside the preceding 90 days.
- Make promotion conditions, eligible variants, duration and exclusions accessible, clear and unambiguous.
- Ensure the percentage calculation matches the displayed prices and that mandatory charges are not hidden.
- Retain complaint and correction records. A sales-promotion permit, if one is required for the campaign type, does not make an inaccurate price comparison truthful.
Frequently asked questions
Is every crossed-out price illegal?
No. It may be lawful when the comparison satisfies Article 111 and the ad is not materially misleading. The seller should have records that support the stated basis.
Does one sale at the former price count?
Article 111 uses two alternative routes for the seller’s former price: the item was sold at that price within the preceding 90 days, or it was offered at that price for at least four weeks during those 90 days. Whether a particular transaction and variant truly match remains a factual question.
Can I demand the crossed-out price as a refund?
Not automatically. The reference price is evidence about the advertisement, not a guaranteed refund amount. Tie the remedy you request to the order, loss, contract and applicable consumer remedies. A person who did not buy generally seeks correction or enforcement rather than a personal refund.
Can a seller compare with a price older than 90 days?
Yes, but Article 111 says the advertisement must disclose the date, time or seasonal period of that older sale or offer.
Should I report a fake discount to the police?
Ordinary misleading-pricing complaints belong with the seller, platform and DTI. A criminal route requires separate facts supporting an offense; calling a weak discount “estafa” does not establish one or produce a refund.
Official sources and status
- Republic Act No. 7394, Consumer Act of the Philippines — Supreme Court E-Library: Articles 110–111 govern materially misleading advertising and former, future and competitor price comparisons.
- Republic Act No. 7394 — DTI Bureau of Philippine Standards copy.
- Republic Act No. 11967, Internet Transactions Act of 2023 — Supreme Court E-Library: Sections 21, 23–26 and 29 cover online promotion disclosure, prices, redress and liability.
- How to file a consumer complaint — DTI Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau.
- DTI Consumer CARe System.
Legal and procedure review: the cited statutes and DTI complaint route were rechecked on 15 October 2026. RA 7394 and RA 11967 are enacted laws, not draft measures. Marketplace interfaces and return windows can change; verify the current in-app path when filing.
About this guide
Author: CyberCode.ph Editorial Team.
Review limits: No named external lawyer is credited unless that review occurred. This guide explains general Philippine consumer-law rules and evidence steps; it does not decide whether a particular seller violated the law.
CyberCode.ph provides general educational information about technology, cybersecurity, privacy and related legal issues. It is not a substitute for legal, cybersecurity or professional advice for a specific situation.