CMA secures High Court Order against Emma Sleep over misleading sales promotions

On 22 May 2026, the High Court confirmed that Emma Sleep had broken consumer law through its use of misleading Countdown Timers, false 'High Demand' messages and 'discount' claims.

This last-minute settlement (almost) brings to an end a case that was first launched back in 2022, long before the CMA received its new consumer enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).

However, as the parties failed to agree an out of court settlement in relation to Emma Sleep’s use of 'was/now' prices (known as ‘reference pricing’), a full trial will take place from 4 June 2026 on this specific issue. This is hotly anticipated and is expected to provide much-needed judicial clarity in relation to an area badly in need of legal certainty. Click here to read more on the reference pricing aspect of the Emma Sleep case.

This article focuses on the other promotional sales practices that were covered by the High Court Order.

Background

In sharp contrast to the fast-moving cases brought by the CMA post-DMCCA, it is now well over three years since the CMA first announced its investigation into Emma Sleep on 30 November 2022, focusing on the use of online urgency claims (including Countdown Timers), discounts and pricing practices on the Emma Sleep website.

In the pre-DMCCA era, the CMA lacked the power to impose civil penalties without going to court. Under those old rules, which still apply to the Emma Sleep case as it was commenced before April 2025, the CMA had to take companies to court to compel them to change their practices – or agree voluntary undertakings, as Simba Sleep did in August 2024.

Unlike its rivals Simba, Emma Sleep dug its heels in and refused to agree to the CMA’s demands in relation to behavioural changes. While Emma Sleep continues to fight its corner in relation to the CMA’s contentious demands regarding reference pricing – as detailed in the CMA’s controversial online pricing guidance issued following the Simba undertakings – it has conceded its position in relation to headline discount claims, countdown timers and urgency messaging.

How did Emma Sleep’s sales promotions break the law?

The High Court Order confirmed that Emma Sleep had engaged in the following prohibited unfair commercial practices (UCPs):

• Headline Discount Claims: This involved general price reduction claims that applied across the website or certain categories, rather than specific individual products or bundles. A Headline Discount Claim appeared continuously on the Emma Sleep website every day during the periods 13 January 2022 to 31 October 2022 and 1 December 2022 to 2 March 2024. There were no gaps in this period, and no days on which such a claim was absent, notwithstanding that the claims were presented as time‑limited offers.
• Countdown Timers: Countdown timers were typically displayed alongside Headline Discount Claims. Where the same, or a substantially similar, promotion reappeared immediately or shortly after a claim and associated timer expired, the effect was that the timer counted down to zero without any genuine change in the underlying offer. In these circumstances, the timers did not reflect a genuine deadline.
• High Demand Claims: “High Demand” claims were displayed in circumstances where there was no real risk of stock depletion and where a significant number of customers had neither purchased nor were in the process of purchasing the product. For example, on 4 February 2022 the Emma Sleep website stated that a product had been viewed 6,458 times in the previous 24 hours, despite only seven units being sold that day and there being no shortage of stock. The defendants admitted to 55 instances of such claims in relation to certain mattresses between January and November 2022, with the claims triggered by thresholds as low as two or 500 website visits depending on the version of the site.

These aspects of the case have been settled, with Emma Sleep giving binding undertakings to stop these practices and to ensure that any future claims on its website are clear, accurate and do not create a false impression that consumers need to act quickly.

The settlement also prevents Emma Sleep from using “limited time” sales or discounts where substantially similar deals continue after the stated deadline. The undertakings are legally binding and enforceable by the Court. Any failure to comply could result in contempt of court proceedings and significant penalties.

What does this mean for DMCCA enforcement?

The CMA has been clear for many years now that misleading countdown clocks, time-limited discounts and choice pressure are a top enforcement priority. While the Emma Sleep case was launched pre-DMCCA, that position has not changed.

Indeed, two of the first eight cases launched by the CMA post-DMCCA – Wayfair and Appliances Direct – relate to time-limited discounts.

It’s also important to note that a subtle change to the UCP rules under Part 4 of the DMCCA has reduced the evidential threshold for the CMA to prove a breach in this area.  This is because the relevant banned practice under Schedule 20(7) of the DMCCA no longer requires the CMA (or any other enforcer) to prove that the misleading time-limited offer falsely claimed that the special offer was only available for a “very” limited time.

The old rules were generally seen as only capturing false time-limited offers that came with more explicit urgency messaging (e.g. “Hurry, offer ends tomorrow”). The new DMCCA rules are wider. See the amended post-DMCCA wording below:

Of course, even under the new rules the CMA must still demonstrate that the time-limited offer was “false”. And that it was made in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice. We await clarity on how the CMA approaches these points in its live DMCCA investigations into Wayfair and Appliances Direct.

If you need a reminder, under its new DMCCA powers, the CMA no longer needs to rely on High Court Orders to enforce the rules. It can now impose penalties up to 10% of global turnover and impose behavioural measures without going to court.

Key takeaways for promotional claims

While we still await the full hearing that will test the legal boundaries for price strikethroughs and “was”/“now” pricing, the key findings in the Emma Sleep High Court Order are as follows:

• Headline Discount Claims. The case highlights the risks associated with site-wide and category-level promotions, as well as more general “X% off” messaging. In this case, it was agreed that continuously running materially identical “discount” promotions with no gaps, despite each being presented as time-limited, formed part of the infringing conduct. Claims presented as “limited time” offers must genuinely be time-limited.
• Countdown Timers. Countdown timers and clocks must not create a false impression that consumers need to act quickly. They must not imply that a promotion will end, or that prices will revert, where this is not in fact the case. Timers must relate clearly to a specific promotion, conclude at the same time as that promotion, and must not be used where substantially similar promotions run shortly afterwards.
• High Demand Claims. “High Demand” or similar scarcity messaging must not give consumers a misleading impression of urgency and must be clear, accurate, and properly qualified. Where such claims rely on metrics (e.g. views or purchase activity), those metrics must genuinely reflect market conditions.

If you need support in relation to any of these issues, get in touch with TLT’s consumer law team. Our team of experts regularly support global brands, retailers and online marketplaces with structuring their pricing and promotions to comply with the UK consumer and advertising law.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at June 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.