Czech law generally does not restrict traders in differentiating prices based on customer groups, including the provision of individualised benefits within loyalty programmes. Such arrangements are legitimate, provided that their conditions are communicated in a transparent and comprehensible manner. What is decisive for the legal assessment in a given case is therefore not the mere existence of a different “club price”, but the manner in which this information is communicated to the consumer in the context of a specific commercial presentation.
Once a trader communicates a price advantage, even indirectly through graphic or other marketing elements, the legal framework governing the presentation of discounts under Section 12a of Act No. 634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection, comes into play. What is relevant is the effect of such communication, not its designation. In other words, even without the explicit use of the term “discount”, a communication may be assessed as a discount announcement if it is capable of creating the impression for an average consumer that the price of a product has been reduced and that it represents a more advantageous offer.
The decisive factor is whether a uniform graphical designation (for example, a yellow price tag) is capable of creating such an impression, without sufficiently clear differentiation between a generally available discount and a price benefit conditional on membership. If an average consumer may, based on such presentation, form the belief that the discount also applies to them, and on that basis make a purchasing decision, this constitutes a relevant legal issue from the perspective of consumer protection.
At the same time, it is necessary to assess compliance with general information obligations relating to price. Under Section 13 of Act No. 526/1990 Coll., on Prices, the price presented to the consumer must be unambiguous, easily identifiable and clearly legible, and the consumer must have a real opportunity to become acquainted with it before making a purchase decision. In the online environment, this requirement is further specified by the Civil Code (in particular Sections 1811 and 1820 of Act No. 89/2012 Coll.), according to which price information must be communicated clearly and comprehensibly before the order is submitted, and must not be concealed or presented in a way that reduces its perceptibility. If the information that the preferential price applies only to programme members is not sufficiently prominent, or is presented in a way that the consumer would not naturally perceive at that stage of the purchase, it may be concluded that this obligation has not been met. Of particular importance in this context is the fact that the presentation takes place in the final stage of the purchasing process, when the consumer acts more quickly, relies on visual shortcuts and pays less attention to details. In such a situation, the requirement for clarity and transparency of price communication is particularly strict.
From the perspective of the Consumer Protection Act (Section 4(1)), a commercial practice is unfair if it is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and is capable of materially distorting the economic behaviour of the consumer. In the case of “club prices”, such distortion may lie in the fact that the consumer, based on the visual impression of the existence of a discount, adds goods to the shopping cart and makes a purchasing decision that they would otherwise not have made. Specifically, this may constitute a misleading action under Section 5 of the Consumer Protection Act, as even truthful information may be considered misleading if it is presented in a manner that misleads or is capable of misleading the consumer regarding the price or the existence of a price advantage. Alternatively, the elements of a misleading omission under Section 5a of the same Act may be met if essential information about the limited availability of the price is provided in an unclear, incomprehensible manner or in a way that makes it difficult for the average consumer to perceive.
It is true that the legal framework allows for the existence of loyalty programmes and individualised price advantages, to which the rules of Section 12a of the Consumer Protection Act may not fully apply. However, this does not mean that their presentation is exempt from the general requirement of transparency and the prohibition of misleading practices. Even in such cases, the trader must ensure that the average consumer is not misled as to the availability or nature of the price advantage.
In conclusion, it can be stated that the practice where it is not entirely clear from the graphical presentation of a discount whether it is intended for everyone or only for club members falls within a legally risky area. In itself, it does not necessarily have to be unlawful, but depending on the specific design of the user interface, the intensity of visual emphasis and the manner of communicating the conditions of the price advantage, it may constitute both a breach of information obligations when presenting prices and the elements of an unfair commercial practice. The decisive factor will be whether the average consumer may be misled as to the existence and availability of the discount, and whether the conditions of the price advantage were communicated clearly, comprehensibly and in a timely manner.
If a breach of legal regulations is established, the trader may face liability for an administrative offence under the Consumer Protection Act, including the imposition of a fine of up to several million Czech crowns, as well as the emergence of individual claims by affected consumers (e.g. the right to an appropriate reduction in price or withdrawal from the contract under Section 5d of the Consumer Protection Act).
This text was translated by AI.
