House Joint Resolution 184, 1990, patroned by Delegate S. Wallace Stieffen of Hampton, established a 10-member joint subcommittee to study Virginia's comparative price advertising statute. House Joint Resolution 337, 1991 continued this study during the 1991 interim.

Price advertising is an integral part of retail marketing. Consumers should be able to depend upon advertisements to do their "shopping around." The United States Supreme Court, in "Virginia Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc." (*1) found that a market economy must have a "strong interest in the free flow of commercial information" (*2) in order to support fair competition. The Court's recognition of free commercial speech rights is not, however, so broad as to restrict the regulation of false or deceptive commercial speech.

Comparative price advertising, in general, is the advertising by a retailer of a product's or service's price as that product's or service's (i) previous price, (ii) price as charged by another retailer, (iii) price as compared to that for similar goods, or (iv) price as established by manufacturer's suggested retail list. Under Virginia law, price comparison advertising is allowed only when the comparison price is legitimately established by substantial sales made at that price within the same trade area, or the product or service was offered for sale at the previous price for at least 30 days during the preceding four-month period, or the advertisement contains the date on which sales were made at the former or comparison price. Virginia's statute (§ 18.2-219) carries a Class 1 misdemeanor penalty and, generally, applies to all sales to the public without regard to the type of merchandise or service. The one major exception to this rule, motor vehicle dealer advertising, is regulated under § 46.2-1581.

Virginia's comparative price advertising statute has changed very little in the last 20 years - a time during which the American marketplace has become a national and international exchange. Sumpter Priddy of the Virginia Retail Merchants' Association, which originally suggested the need for this study, testified before the subcommittee that the laws governing merchandising have been slow to recognize the realities of today's marketplace. While retailers are striving to prepare themselves for what economists are calling a new world economy, Virginia's statute, as written, does not reflect today's marketplace. Its unwieldy language alone negates its effectiveness. The purpose of and the need for this statute, however, remain the same - to preserve an atmosphere of fair competition within the retail market place and to protect consumers from false and misleading advertising.
________________________________________
(*1) 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976)
(*2) Id. At 1827.