A discount is a comparison and a comparison is only as reliable as its reference point. A struck-through figure beside a lower price represents that the lower price is a genuine concession. Indian law has so far policed that representation only after the event, through the general prohibition on misleading advertisements.

The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, notified on September 9, 2026 and in force from January 1, 2027, add a direct rule. Rule 4(13) requires an e-commerce entity or seller that announces a price reduction to disclose a “prior price” alongside the reduced price.

This article argues that Rule 4(13) rests on a sound benchmark but leaves four questions open: what period the benchmark covers, how prominently it must be shown, who bears the duty on a marketplace and how a claim can be tested. It reads the rule against the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in Aldi Süd, which interprets a provision with the same 30-day benchmark.

Rule 4(13) reads in full:

“(13) Where an e-commerce entity or the seller announces a price reduction for any goods or services on its platform, it shall indicate the prior price of such goods or services along with reduced price.

Explanation – For the purposes of this sub-rule, “prior price” means the lowest price of a good or service thirty days prior to the announcement of price reduction.”

The sub-rule was made under Section 101(2)(zg) of the Act, in the same notification as Rule 4(12), which requires sponsored listings to carry “clear and prominent disclosures”. Under Rule 8 of the 2020 Rules, a contravention attracts the provisions of the Act; the Rules create no separate penalty. First, Rule 4(13) names both the “e-commerce entity” and “the seller”, although Rule 3(1)(b) of the 2020 Rules defines an e-commerce entity so as to exclude a seller on a marketplace. Second, it requires the prior price to be “indicate[d]”, without the prominence that Rule 4(12) requires.

Existing law gave consumers a ceiling but not a history. Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 bars a sale above the price declared on the package, as the Department of Consumer Affairs has told Parliament. That price limits what may be charged; it does not record what the seller actually charged in preceding weeks.

The Act reaches false discount claims, but only after the fact. Section 2(28) defines a misleading advertisement to include one that falsely describes a product or service. Applying it to a discount requires proof that the earlier price was not genuine and the evidence lies with the seller. The European Commission’s guidance, quoted in Aldi Süd at paragraph 9, explains the 30-day period as a means of stopping traders from raising a price briefly so that a later fall appears significant. Rule 4(13) pursues the same object by making the question answerable from the seller’s own records. The Department of Consumer Affairs reports that 5,11,196 of the 17,71,622 grievances received by the National Consumer Helpline in 2025 (about 29 per cent) concerned e-commerce.

The Explanation admits two readings. On the first, the prior price is the lowest price within the 30 days that precede the announcement. On the second, it is the price on the single day 30 days earlier. Only the first reading serves the rule’s purpose; the second would let a seller raise the price after that day and then announce a reduction from the inflated figure. The Press Information Bureau’s release adopts the first reading, but an executive explanation does not settle the construction of a statutory definition. The Explanation should say “during”.

The Court of Justice faced a comparable gap in Aldi Süd. It accepted that the wording of Article 6a(1) did not by itself settle the question, resolved it by the ordinary meaning of “reduction” and the provision’s objectives (paragraphs 20 to 27), and held that the reduction must be determined from the prior price. An Indian forum may reason likewise, but legislative clarity is safer. The European text also states whose price counts, “the lowest price applied by the trader” and a period “not shorter than 30 days”. The Indian text names neither. On a marketplace listing offered by several sellers, it does not say whether the benchmark is the lowest price of any seller or of the seller announcing the reduction. Nor does it define “price”. The 2020 Rules require a total price in a single figure (Rules 6(5)(b) and 7(1)(e)); that is the natural meaning here, and the amendment should say so.

Aldi Süd is not binding in India; its value lies in its reasoning. A retailer advertised bananas at €1.29 beside a struck-through €1.69 and stated in smaller type that the lowest price of the previous 30 days was also €1.29. The referring court recorded that the shelf price had been €1.69 from mid-September 2022 except for one week at €1.29 (paragraphs 11 and 13). The Court held that a reduction announced as a percentage, or by a promotional statement, must be determined from the prior price, because merely mentioning it would allow unreal reductions (paragraphs 26 and 29). A price presented as reduced cannot equal or exceed the prior price (paragraph 27).

Rule 4(13) requires the prior price to be indicated. It does not say that the announced reduction must be computed from it and unlike Rule 4(12), it does not require prominence. A platform could display “50% off” computed from a higher reference figure, show the prior price in small type and arguably satisfy the wording. The Indian text should adopt both safeguards expressly.

The allocation of the duty is unclear. Rule 4(13) applies where “an e-commerce entity or the seller” announces a reduction and then provides that “it” shall indicate the prior price. Because a marketplace seller is not an e-commerce entity under Rule 3(1)(b), a seller that announces its own discount is not clearly a duty-bearer, although the platform controls the display and holds the data. Rule 5(2) of the 2020 Rules already requires a marketplace to obtain an undertaking from sellers on the accuracy of content. The amendment can build on this: the platform should answer for display and record-keeping, the seller for the accuracy of the prices it sets and a platform that has taken reasonable verification steps should have a defence for a seller’s false input.

Enforcement runs through the Act. Under Section 21(1), the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) may direct a trader, manufacturer, endorser, advertiser or publisher to discontinue or modify a false advertisement. The penalty of up to ₹10 lakh, rising to ₹50 lakh for a subsequent contravention, is directed in Section 21(2) at a manufacturer or endorser. Section 21(4) separately reaches a person who publishes, or is party to publishing, a misleading advertisement. Section 89 provides imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to ₹10 lakh for a manufacturer or service provider who causes one. The Act does not say expressly whether a reseller or platform announcing a false reduction falls within these categories.

Evidence is the larger difficulty. The consumer sees only the current price, and Rule 4(13) imposes no duty to retain price history or produce it on request. Practitioner commentary treats the rule as a systems task, advising platforms to build price-history systems. Regulators and consumers need a corresponding duty to keep and produce that history.

Rule 4(13) correctly identifies the harm and adopts the European 30-day benchmark. Its weakness is drafting. The defects can be corrected before January 1, 2027, by amending the Explanation or through guidelines of the CCPA, which has used its Section 18 power to issue dark-pattern guidelines. Six changes are recommended.

First, the Explanation should define the prior price as the lowest total price at which the goods or services were offered during the 30 days immediately preceding the announcement.

Second, it should state whose price is meant and on a marketplace listing that should be the price offered by the announcing seller.

Third, the prior price should be displayed with prominence equal to the reduction claim.

Fourth, any percentage or promotional claim should be computed from the prior price and a price presented as reduced should not equal or exceed it.

Fifth, the Rules should address listings younger than 30 days and successive reductions within one campaign. The European Directive allows member-states regulatory choices for certain goods, whereas the Indian text has no comparable provision.

Sixth, platforms should retain price history for a stated period and produce it to the CCPA or consumer forum on request.

Prof Ashok R Patil is Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi.

Subham Sourav is a fourth-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the University.