Learn from the case of Japanet Takata: Rules for dual price display and points to be aware of

On September 12, 2025, Japanet Takata, a major mail-order business, received an order from the Consumer Affairs Agency to take corrective measures based on the Specified Commercial Transactions Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Specified Commercial Transactions Act").
The company's target was the price display of its "2025 Extra Large Japanese and Western New Year's Two-Tier Box," and the Consumer Affairs Agency has filed a lawsuit against the company pursuant to Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions and Unlawful Act, claiming that the display constituted a misleading representation of benefits.Measures orderIn response, the company posted the following on its website on the same day:Official rebuttalOn September 25th, we submitted a request for review to the Consumer Affairs Agency under the Administrative Appeal Act.

It is rare for a large company to publicly refute an order issued by the Consumer Affairs Agency. Therefore, using this case as a reference, we will explain the rules on dual price display, including "what the rules on dual price display are" and "points to note to avoid violating the rules on dual price display."

What signs should I pay attention to?

Displaying double prices does not immediately violate the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions and Fair Trade.There is no problem if the "comparison price" is displayed based on reasonable grounds and sales history..
In order to avoid "unfair double price display" as regulated by the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, attention should be paid to the following points:

① When using past sales prices as comparative prices

The comparison price must be the price at which the item has been sold for a considerable period of time in the recent past..
Whether or not a product falls under the category of "a price at which it has been sold for a considerable period of time in the recent past" must be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the time, period, general price fluctuations of the product in question, the sales format in the store, etc. However, generally speaking, there is no problem if the product has been sold at that price for more than half of the total number of times in the last eight weeks.

However, if the period during which the product was sold at that price is less than two weeks in total, or if more than two weeks have passed since the last day of sales, it does not qualify as the "price at which the product was sold for a considerable period of time recently."

② When future sales prices are used as comparable prices

"If you miss this opportunity, you won't be able to purchase it at the discounted price."If future sales prices are displayed as comparable prices, there must be sufficient evidence to sell at those prices.It has been with.
Creating a sense of bargaining because of a limited time offer when there is no prospect of a sale is considered inappropriate, except in cases where there is certainty, such as when it is confirmed that the product will be sold at a comparable price even if there is a change in supply and demand, as this may mislead consumers.

③ When the suggested retail price or the selling price of a competing business is used as the comparison price

If the comparison price is a suggested retail price that has been set by the manufacturer but not made public through newspaper advertisements, catalogs, or printing on the product itself, or a price that is not the most recent selling price of a competitor that can alternatively purchase the product, this may be considered an unfair representation.

What is the case of Japanet Takata?

Specific contents of the measures order

When selling the "[2025] Extra Large Two-Tiered Japanese and Western New Year's Food Box," the company advertised the items as "Japanet regular price of 29,980 yen," "10,000 yen discount from July 22nd to November 23rd," "Discounted price of 19,980 yen (tax included)," and "~ Now's a great deal on this popular New Year's food! ~ Early booking campaign."
This "regular price" was displayed as the "future selling price," but the Consumer Affairs Agency pointed out that "there was no reasonable and reliable sales plan to sell at that future selling price after the sale period had ended, and the Japanet regular price was not recognized as having sufficient basis as a future selling price." The Agency determined that this was a "misleading representation of an advantageous price," leading consumers to believe that the price was significantly more advantageous than it actually was, and issued an order to correct the situation.

How did Japanet Takata respond?

In response to the Consumer Affairs Agency's corrective order, Japanet Takata filed an appeal request seeking the cancellation of the order, making the following claims, and made clear its intention to publicly contest the order.

• The regular price of 29,980 yen was the actual selling price until just before the campaign began.
• In similar past campaigns, products have been sold at regular prices after the campaign ended.
• The plan was to return the product to the regular price in 2024, but this was not possible due to early sales during the campaign period.
• In this case, the New Year's feast should have been priced at 29,980 yen, but was offered at 19,980 yen through the company's efforts to purchase 430,000 units, and the selling price was therefore justified.

In other words, the company claims that there was a sales plan, but that the products were sold out early within the period and as a result, sales were not possible, and that this is not a false statement.

Possibility of inciting future discussions on price display

If a corrective order under the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations is issued, the company's image will be damaged and it will lose the trust of consumers. If the company does not comply with the order and is found to have violated the order, it may be subject to criminal penalties. Therefore, the general response is to promptly comply with the order and take measures to prevent recurrence.
*From October 1, 2024, the revised Act on Specified Commercial Transactions and Trademarks will introduce a new provision that will allow for the immediate imposition of a fine of up to 1 million yen for certain types of misrepresentation without going through a corrective order.

However, in this case, Japanet Takata, a large company with a strong national reputation, made public its official position and showed an intention to directly challenge the validity of the order itself.
This type of response is extremely rare and has thrown a wrench into the debate over the application of the CLRA and the nature of "future price display."
The corrective order against Japanet Takata is a symbolic case that shows the government's stance of taking a strict stance against "future price display." At the same time, it is an unusual development in which a large company has publicly contested an administrative action, and is expected to have an impact on future legal enforcement and corporate advertising strategies.

Price display is not just a promotional technique, it is a contract of trust with the consumer.
We believe that having not only the marketing department but also the legal and compliance departments review the accuracy of the labeling and preparing evidence such as actual sales results and specific sales plans will ultimately lead to increased corporate value.

If you have any concerns regarding double-displayed prices or the Specified Commercial Transactions Act, please feel free to contact Mimura Komatsu Law Office.

【2025.10.24】