Skip to content
Close Menu
ConvictionConviction
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

Judges order Free State Premier to decide on Barolong Boo Seleka leadership dispute

August 7, 2026

High Court overturns contempt conviction imposed during unlawful warrant enquiry

August 7, 2026

Sanlam franchise principal paid R1.1 million in ‘protection’ bribes to shield business

August 7, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • Judges order Free State Premier to decide on Barolong Boo Seleka leadership dispute
  • High Court overturns contempt conviction imposed during unlawful warrant enquiry
  • Sanlam franchise principal paid R1.1 million in ‘protection’ bribes to shield business
  • Mother told of child’s brain damage at Tembisa Hospital can still sue Gauteng Health Department
  • Attorney removed from late sister’s estate for using estate funds in personal court fight
  • Court reinstates National Arts Council and freezes replacement process pending review
  • A genuine reset of the Section 22 Committee can restore confidence and strengthen accountability
  • Fort Hare names international moot court competition after Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
ConvictionConviction
Sonneblom
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch
ConvictionConviction
Home » Pep Stores sparks outrage over confusing ‘buy any 2 for R99.99’ deal
Consumer Protection Law

Pep Stores sparks outrage over confusing ‘buy any 2 for R99.99’ deal

Consumer complaint exposes misleading pricing in Pep Stores’ children’s clothing promotion.
Kennedy MudzuliBy Kennedy MudzuliOctober 22, 2025No Comments
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
  • The shopper complained that she was misled by Pep’s “buy any 2 for R99.99” promotion, as she was charged per item instead of for both.
  • The Advertising Regulatory Board ruled that the unclear pricing amounted to misleading advertising and breached the Code.
  • Advertising members have been instructed not to accept or publish Pep’s wording again following the 17 October 2025 ruling.

The offer seemed like a bargain too good to pass up: “Buy any 2 kids track pants and track tops (7–14 years) for R99.99 and save R40.00.” But when one Pep customer reached the till, she realised something was off.

Instead of paying R99.99 for both garments, she was billed R99.99 each, totalling R199.98, with a R40 discount applied only afterward. Feeling deceived, the shopper took her frustration to the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), saying the ad was misleading and that she “would never have made the purchase” had she known the real price.

“I saw the ad and thought I’d get two items for R99.99. Nowhere did it say the price was per item,” she wrote in her complaint, attaching her till slip as proof.

Misleading communication

The ARB found that the Pep Stores advertisement failed to clearly communicate the offer, labeling it as ambiguous and misleading. According to the ruling, the deal could easily be read in more than one way — either that each item cost R99.99, that both together cost R99.99, or that a discount applied on a combined total.

In its decision, the ARB stated: “Clause 4.2.1 is clear that ambiguous communication is misleading. The claim can be read in three ways… Given the ambiguity of the claim, the reasonable consumer might well be confused.”

Pepkor Holdings Limited, which owns Pep Stores, did not respond to the complaint and does not submit to the ARB’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Board emphasised that it may still rule on such matters to guide its members, particularly on whether they should accept or withdraw advertisements that may breach ethical standards.

Frustration over silence

The ARB expressed disappointment at Pep’s lack of engagement, remarking: “It is always frustrating for the Directorate to make a decision in the absence of a response – especially in a matter like this where it appears that there may be an explanation.”

Without any input from the retailer, the Board found the wording “buy any 2 kids track pants and track tops (7–14 years) for 99.99 and save R40.00” to be ambiguous and in breach of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice.

A lesson in clarity

The ARB upheld the complaint and instructed its members not to accept any Pep advertisement repeating the same claim.

Consumer advocates say the case highlights the importance of clarity in advertising — especially when targeting lower-income shoppers. What may look like a small pricing error, they warn, can easily erode public trust and strain household budgets.

“The difference between ‘R99.99 for two’ and ‘R99.99 each’ isn’t a typo,” one consumer rights activist commented, “it’s the difference between feeling respected and feeling cheated.”

Conviction.co.za 

Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

Advertising Regulatory Board consumer protection Misleading Advertising Pep Stores retail marketing
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Telegram Email
Kennedy Mudzuli

Multiple award-winner with passion for news and training young journalists. Founder and editor of Conviction.co.za

Related Posts

Buyer seeks refund after new Audi develops electrical faults within six months

August 6, 2026

Legacy Builders fails to prove claims consumers can earn up to R92 000 working two hours a day

August 4, 2026

Judge recalls car repossession order after Nedbank client arrives late for hearing

July 30, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 5   +   4   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

June 2, 2025
Don't Miss
Special Reports
6 Mins Read

Judges order Free State Premier to decide on Barolong Boo Seleka leadership dispute

By Kennedy MudzuliAugust 7, 20266 Mins Read

The High Court in Bloemfontein ruled that the Free State Premier acted unlawfully by failing to decide on Gaboilelwe Moroka’s recognition as Kgosi and ordered a decision within 30 days.

High Court overturns contempt conviction imposed during unlawful warrant enquiry

August 7, 2026

Sanlam franchise principal paid R1.1 million in ‘protection’ bribes to shield business

August 7, 2026

Mother told of child’s brain damage at Tembisa Hospital can still sue Gauteng Health Department

August 7, 2026
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
Demo
About Us
About Us

Helping South Africans to navigate the legal landscape; providing accessible legal information; and giving a voice to those seeking justice.

Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube WhatsApp Twitch RSS
Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024
OUR PICKS

R112,000 hospital bill reduced to R750, allowing refugee child’s body to be released for burial

August 3, 2026

Attorney who briefs advocate remains liable for fees unless agreement states otherwise

July 30, 2026

High Court ends Bloemfontein-only filing rule for Supreme Court of Appeal cases

August 3, 2026
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by