Dutch Consumer Group Accuses Amazon and Bol of Fake Discounts

The two largest marketplaces in the Netherlands have been sent a cease and desist letter over the way they display discounts. The letter did not come from a regulator. It came from the Consumentenbond, the Dutch Consumers’ Association, a private membership organization with no power to fine anybody, which says it will take legal steps if Amazon and Bol do not change their practice. Both companies dispute the findings.

Two corrections, because the coverage has gone wrong in the same two places. This is not enforcement action by the Dutch competition and consumer authority, the ACM: it is a demand letter from a private organization. And the figure travelling fastest, 41%, is not a general Amazon discount-accuracy rate. It is the share of the Amazon offers tracked in this one study that the Consumentenbond judged non-compliant, 46 out of 113. What makes the story worth an operator’s time is the rule underneath it, which attaches to any trader announcing a price reduction, not to marketplaces as a category.

Watch: the breakdown on The E-Commerce Weekly, Ep. 5

We walk through the key takeaways in this week’s episode. Full written analysis continues below.

What was actually measured

Per the Consumentenbond’s own announcement, dated 17 July 2026, its researchers tracked 1,142 popular products over two months, in categories tied to football World Cup demand: air fryers and Bluetooth speakers at Amazon, air fryers and televisions at Bol. Of those 1,142 products, 323 were discounted at least once in the window. Of those discounted offers, 108 breached the rule being tested. The split:

• Amazon: 46 non-compliant offers out of 113 tracked (about 41% of the Amazon offers in this sample).
• Bol: 62 non-compliant offers out of 210 tracked (about 30% of the Bol offers in this sample).

The arithmetic closes, which makes the claim checkable: 113 plus 210 equals the 323 discounted offers, and 46 plus 62 equals the 108 breaches. Note the limits, though: four categories, across an unusually promotional two months, with neither full assortment measured. Read the percentages as the output of one tracking exercise, not a platform-wide accuracy score.

The two examples are the clearest part of the case

The named products do the work. On 6 July 2026, according to the Consumentenbond’s tracking, Amazon offered a JBL Charge 6 speaker at 147 EUR, presented as 26% off 199.99 EUR, after the same speaker had sold at 133 EUR for nearly a month.

On 7 July 2026, a Samsung QE43Q7FA television at Bol was offered at 349 EUR with a claim of 12% saved against a crossed-out “usual price” of 399 EUR. The Consumentenbond says it never carried 399 EUR in the preceding 60 days: it was 349 EUR for most of that period, and 329 EUR on 6 July. A reference price the product never carried, or carried only before a lower price took over, is exactly the failure the 30 day rule exists to catch.

Who sent the letter, and why the coverage does not agree

Some coverage has called the sender a Dutch regulator, and that framing has spread into secondary reports of the story. It is not a regulator. The letter comes from the Consumentenbond, a private consumers’ association funded by its members, which cannot sanction anyone. The distinction changes what can happen next, which is why it is worth correcting.

A regulator such as the ACM can investigate, impose remedies and levy fines on its own authority. A consumer association cannot: its leverage is publicity, its membership and litigation, which is why the Consumentenbond says it will go to court if the marketplaces do not comply. Nothing here has been ruled unlawful.

The ACM’s own position is the more important document for a seller. In a statement published on 19 September 2025, it said discounts must be compared against “de laagste prijs die zij rekenden in de 30 dagen vóór die korting” (the lowest price they charged in the 30 days before that discount), said it would be checking whether businesses, physical stores and online channels alike, comply, and stated that “gelden er regels voor iedereen die in Nederland zaken doet”. Everyone doing business in the Netherlands. Not marketplaces.

The rule is European, not Dutch

The standard being measured against is Article 6a, inserted into Directive 98/6/EC by Directive (EU) 2019/2161, the Omnibus Directive, which member states were required to have in force by 28 May 2022. The text is two short paragraphs. First: “Any announcement of a price reduction shall indicate the prior price applied by the trader for a determined period of time prior to the application of the price reduction.” Second: “The prior price means the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction.”

Look at the subject of that first sentence. Not “any marketplace”, not “any large retailer”: any announcement of a price reduction, by the trader. A percentage badge, a struck-through number, a was/now pair in a listing or a promo card is such an announcement. Member states may vary the rule for goods that deteriorate rapidly, for products on the market under 30 days, and where a reduction is progressively increased: exceptions to confirm locally, not escape hatches.

Why a failure rate at the top should worry a one-person promo calendar

Amazon and Bol have pricing teams, legal departments and systems built for this requirement. The individual seller has a spreadsheet, a repricer and a deadline. The failure modes are structural rather than dishonest, which is what makes them easy to walk into. A repricer that drops your price for a fortnight quietly resets your lowest 30 day price, while the “was” figure in your promotion still points at the old list price. A struck-through RRP inherited from a supplier feed was never your selling price at all. Multi-variant listings each carry their own history, and the same ASIN sells at different prices in different European stores. None of it requires intent, and all of it produces exactly the pattern the study describes.

How to set a reference price you could defend

The rule as written sets the whole method. The reference price you display must be the lowest price you actually applied in the preceding 30 days. The input is therefore not your list price or your RRP: it is a number you look up per SKU, per variant, per marketplace, for a window ending the day the promotion starts.

So the pre-promotion task is a data task. Pull 30 days of your own selling prices by SKU and variant, take the minimum, and treat it as the ceiling for any struck-through figure. Do it before the creative, because that number sets the percentage you are allowed to claim. Where a repricer pushed you below list inside the window, the honest reference is the lower figure and the headline discount shrinks. Keep the dated series with the promotion: anyone can run this method against you, including a competitor.

The numbers, traceable

• 1,142 popular products tracked over two months (Consumentenbond study, 17 July 2026).
• 323 discounted at least once; 108 judged non-compliant.
• Amazon: 46 of 113 tracked offers non-compliant, about 41% of this sample.
• Bol: 62 of 210 tracked offers non-compliant, about 30% of this sample.
• JBL Charge 6: 147 EUR billed as 26% off 199.99 EUR, previously 133 EUR for nearly a month (Consumentenbond, 6 July 2026).
• Samsung QE43Q7FA: 349 EUR billed as 12% saved off 399 EUR, not carried in the previous 60 days (Consumentenbond, 7 July 2026).
• The rule: the prior price is the lowest price applied by the trader in a period not shorter than 30 days before the reduction (Article 6a, Directive 98/6/EC as amended by 2019/2161).

What we are watching

Three things. Whether the ACM, the authority that can actually sanction, opens anything of its own on the back of this publicity. Whether the Consumentenbond files, and how its tracking holds up as evidence. And whether consumer groups elsewhere copy the method, because the tracking is cheap and the rule is identical EU-wide.

Amazon’s position is on the record. The company says “We disagree with the claims made by the Consumers’ Association”, alongside commitments to “genuinely low prices” and “clear and accurate pricing information”. Bol disputes the findings too, though it has not issued a comparable public statement. Until a court or the ACM says otherwise, the allegation is an allegation.

The takeaway does not depend on who wins. Two of Europe’s most sophisticated retailers were publicly audited on their struck-through prices and cannot make the accusation go away with a press line. The same audit, run against a seller with no legal team, is easier to run and harder to answer.

Sources

• Consumentenbond, “Consumentenbond sommeert Amazon en Bol te stoppen met nepaanbiedingen”, 17 July 2026: https://www.consumentenbond.nl/nieuws/2026/consumentenbond-sommeert-amazon-en-bol-te-stoppen-met-nepaanbiedingen
• Shopifreaks, “Dutch Consumer Association Demands Amazon and Bol Stop Fake Discounts After Finding 108 Misleading Deals in Price Tracking”, 20 July 2026: https://www.shopifreaks.com/dutch-consumer-association-demands-amazon-and-bol-stop-fake-discounts-after-finding-108-misleading-deals-in-price-tracking/
• Ecommerce News Europe, “Bol and Amazon use misleading discounts”: https://ecommercenews.eu/bol-and-amazon-use-misleading-discounts/ (source of Amazon’s quoted response)
• NL Times, “Dutch regulator sends cease and desist letter to Amazon, Bol.com over fake discounts”, 17 July 2026: https://nltimes.nl/2026/07/17/dutch-regulator-sends-cease-desist-letter-amazon-bolcom-fake-discounts
• Article 6a of Directive 98/6/EC as inserted by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 (the Omnibus Directive), required in force in member states by 28 May 2022: https://www.g-regs.com/downloads/EUOmnibusDirectiveart6aforPPD.pdf
• ACM (Autoriteit Consument en Markt), “ACM wil eerlijke kortingen om consumenten te beschermen tegen misleiding”, 19 September 2025: https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/acm-wil-eerlijke-kortingen-om-consumenten-te-beschermen-tegen-misleiding