UK Watchdog Probes Boots and Superdrug Over 'Misleading' Loyalty Pricing Tactics
Two of Britain's largest high-street pharmacy chains, Boots and Superdrug, are facing scrutiny over allegations they misled customers with questionable loyalty pricing schemes. The consumer advocacy group Which? has formally referred both retailers to the UK's competition watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), following a six-month investigation.
Which? analysed hundreds of loyalty promotions run by the retailers in 2025. The investigation uncovered numerous instances where the advertised savings for loyalty card members were potentially deceptive. The core issue, according to the group, involves retailers artificially inflating a product's standard price immediately before a member-only promotion, creating an illusion of a steeper discount.
"Boots was a pioneer with its Advantage Card, but it now appears to be taking its customers for a ride," said Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection Policy at Which?. "It's equally concerning to see similar tactics at Superdrug. Shoppers trust these brands for their health and beauty needs, and that trust is being undermined."
One cited example involved an Avene moisturiser at Boots, advertised at £16.50 for members versus a 'standard' price of £22. However, Which? found the product was sold for £17.60 to all customers just before the promotion, and for £16.50 to everyone immediately after—never actually at the £22 price used for comparison.
At Superdrug, a Simple skincare bundle was offered to members at £4.98, down from £9.98. Yet, the investigation revealed it was priced at £4.80 for all shoppers before the promotion and £4.49 after, consistently 'reduced' from the same £9.98 reference point.
Which? reported that 17% of nearly 700 Boots deals analysed, and 3% of 6,000 Superdrug promotions, were presented in a potentially misleading manner. The CMA has previously warned that such pricing strategies, where a base price is manipulated around a promotion, could breach consumer protection law.
In response, a Boots spokesperson stated the company "welcomes the CMA's guidance" and is "working diligently" to ensure promotions are transparent. Superdrug defended its practices, saying it "always aim[s] to offer value" and that the flagged cases represented a tiny fraction of its thousands of annual promotions.
The complaint arrives amid heightened regulatory focus on grocery and retail pricing. A 2024 CMA study found most supermarket loyalty discounts are genuine, yet 40% of shoppers remain skeptical of the offers. This case tests the watchdog's resolve in enforcing its guidelines beyond the grocery aisle.
Reader Reactions
Michael T., Retail Analyst, London: "This isn't necessarily malice; it's often a failure of legacy pricing systems. However, the optics are terrible. In a cost-of-living crisis, perceived manipulation of essential goods erodes brand equity faster than any discount can rebuild it."
Sarah Chen, Student, Manchester: "I rely on my Boots card for essentials. This feels like a betrayal. They're banking on us not checking the price history. It's predatory and they should be fined heavily."
David R., Former Marketing Executive, Bristol: "The practice of referencing an inflated 'was' price is an old retail trick. Which? is right to call it out, but the percentages cited suggest it's not systemic at Superdrug. The real question is whether the CMA will set a precedent with meaningful penalties."
Eleanor Shaw, Pensioner, Glasgow: "It's outright deception. They target the elderly and busy families who trust the high street. 'Dodgy deals' is the perfect term for it. The CMA must act, not just investigate."