Legal Q&A · IT, Software & E-commerce

How should we display discounts, and what is the lowest price in the previous 30 days?

Law as at 29 August 2026

Short answer

Every goods price reduction announcement must state the previous price, meaning the lowest price at which you sold the goods in the 30 days before the reduction (Section 7 of Act No. 108/2024 Coll.). The discount must also be calculated from that price, not the regular pre-promotion price. The Slovak Trade Inspection actively checks shops and websites, comparing price records with displayed prices. A struck-through price inconsistent with the history can lead to a fine.

An old price struck through beside a new one is an online shop’s most common sales tool, and an easy source of regulatory trouble. The rule is simple, but compliance must be driven by price records rather than the marketing department.

What exactly does the law require?

The duty has two parts: state the previous price and calculate the discount from it:

A trader shall state the goods’ previous price in every price reduction announcement. The trader shall determine the reduction on the basis of that previous price.

— Section 7(1) of Act No. 108/2024 Coll. (unofficial English translation)

The previous price is not simply the price displayed the day before the promotion:

The previous price is the lowest price at which the trader sold or supplied the goods:

(a) during the 30 days before the price reduction; or

(b) since sales or supply began, if the goods were sold or supplied for fewer than 30 days before the reduction.

— Section 7(2) of Act No. 108/2024 Coll. (unofficial English translation)

The purpose is to prevent artificial discounts where prices rise shortly before a promotion to make the reduction look generous. For successive reductions within one campaign, the price preceding the first reduction may remain the reference price (Section 7(3)). The rule does not apply to rapidly perishable goods (Section 7(4)).

How the SOI checks compliance

Inspectors request price records for the items checked, using their powers under Section 28 of Act No. 108/2024 Coll., and compare them with the displayed claims. Decision No. PP/0016/07/26 of 9 April 2026 imposed a EUR 300 fine: six of twelve checked product types in a “SALE up to 50%” campaign had struck-through prices inconsistent with records. One sweatshirt, for example, showed EUR 84.90 crossed out although its recorded lowest price was EUR 19.95. In decision No. PP/0006/05/2026 of 27 April 2026, a trader received a EUR 400 fine for one product: a basket previously sold for EUR 6.50 showed EUR 7.50 crossed out. One item is enough for a pricing-system error to become a sanction. The SOI also reviewed discounts nationwide, publishing its findings on 30 June 2026.

Inspectors need not visit: online shops are routinely checked using screenshots, as explained in remote SOI inspections.

What to watch in an online shop

The problem is often technical rather than intentional. The system crosses out a manufacturer’s recommended price you never charged, or displays the pre-promotion price despite the goods being cheaper in the meantime. Configure the shop so struck-through amounts always reflect the actual price history for the preceding 30 days, and retain that history: you must produce it during inspection. Words such as “clearance” and percentages on banners also announce a price reduction; the rule is not limited to price labels.

How we can help

Our terms and conditions review checks discounts, price displays and promotional wording, which we reflect in your online shop terms. During an SOI inspection or after a fine, our e-commerce legal services prepare a response and assess appeal prospects.

Before a major seasonal promotion, let us review the wording and discount mechanics. It costs less than explaining price history to inspectors.

This answer provides general information on the law as at 29 August 2026. It does not constitute legal services or replace an assessment of an individual case. The details of your situation may differ. Book a consultation to discuss them.

More legal questions

All questions and answers
  1. Our system implementation is late. May we withdraw only from the part the supplier has not delivered? Yes; in commercial relations the law expressly provides for it: where the delay concerns only part of the obligation, withdrawal is available only in respect of that part. You may withdraw from the entire implementation contract where the parts already delivered evidently have no economic significance for you without the remainder, or where the failure to perform as a whole amounts to a material breach. Before withdrawing, check whether the supplier is in delay because of your own failure to cooperate, and define the scope of the withdrawal precisely in the notice.
  2. The new system does not work with our older software. Is the implementation supplier liable for this? It depends on what the contract defined as the result and on who warned whom. If the supplier could, exercising professional care, have identified that your materials or instructions for the integration were unsuitable and failed to warn you, it is liable for defects caused by their use. If it warned you and you insisted in writing on the original solution, it is not liable for those defects. If the integration depends on cooperation which, under the contract, you were to procure, even through another supplier, the implementation supplier is not in delay in so far as it cannot perform for want of that cooperation.
  3. The supplier of our new system will be migrating our customer data. Do we need a GDPR contract with it? Yes, where the supplier handles personal data of customers or employees on your behalf during migration, testing or support. It is then a processor, and the processing must be governed by a contract with the content prescribed by Article 28 GDPR, in writing, including in electronic form. Among other things, the contract must provide that the supplier processes the data only on your documented instructions and that it returns or deletes the data once the services end. The duty to select a supplier offering sufficient guarantees rests with you as controller.
  4. A trademark owner is demanding that we hand over our domain. Must we? Not automatically. A trademark owner may prohibit the use in the course of trade of an identical sign for identical goods and services, and of a similar sign where there is a likelihood of confusion, but not to the detriment of rights acquired before its application was filed. In alternative dispute resolution for a .sk domain it is also examined whether you have a right or legitimate interest in the domain and whether you acquired and used it in good faith. Do not ignore the demand, but nor should you comply with it before checking your position.

Cannot find your question? Ask your own question

Facing this situation?

Tell us what you need help with.

Describe your situation. We will review it and usually tell you within 24 hours whether and how we can help, including an indicative fee.

  1. 1Send your enquiry via this form
  2. 2Usually within 24 h you get a price confirmation and plan
  3. 3We start work only after your approval
Mgr. Patrik Tulinský, LL.M. Czech and Slovak attorney · SAK 300422 · ČAK 19654

Not keen on calls or email? Message us on WhatsApp →
Prefer to book a time right away? Book a consultation →
Or email us about this matter.

PDF, Word, images, ZIP… max 10 MB per file, 30 MB total.

Submitting this form does not create an engagement or attorney-client relationship. Before taking on a matter we run a conflict-of-interest check, so please do not send sensitive originals until we confirm the matter together.

Contact a lawyer