Bold claim: Coles faces a high-stakes, controversial clash over pricing tactics that could reshape how Australians view supermarket discounts. And this is the part most people miss: what looks like a simple sale can hide strategic pricing moves that wake up regulators and shoppers alike. Here’s a clear, beginner-friendly rewrite that preserves all the facts and tone while making the ideas easier to grasp.
Australia’s consumer watchdog, the ACCC, has launched a court case accusing Coles of running a deliberately misleading price-discount campaign on the eve of the case’s landmark hearing. The ACCC contends the nationwide retailer staged discounts that masked price rises, branding the promotion as a deceptive practice rather than a genuine reduction.
The ACCC’s lawyer, Garry Rich, told the court that Coles temporarily increased prices before applying discounts, resulting in final prices that were the same as or higher than the regular prices. He described the practice as unfair and misleading, questioning why customers would be told prices were falling when they were not.
Evidence the ACCC expects to introduce includes internal Coles documents about the Down Down program, showing changes to the program’s guardrails that the watchdog believes preceded the alleged misleading activity. Rich also suggested that most promotions would have breached earlier policy rules and that the changes aligned more with competitive pricing against Woolworths than with consumer fairness.
A separate, tense part of the testimony focused on dog food pricing and what a reasonable shopper would take away from marketing. For about 300 days between April 2022 and February 2023, Coles reportedly sold a 1.2-kilogram Nature’s Gift Wet Dog Food for $4, then increased the price by 50 percent to $6 for seven days. On the eighth day, the price dropped to $4.50—advertised as a “Down, Down” deal. The ACCC argued that, while the numbers were technically accurate, they failed to disclose that the price had jumped to $6 for a brief period just before the promotion, and that most of the preceding days had seen the $4 price.
Justice Michael O’Bryan pressed on how to interpret the pricing history. He questioned the relevance of the long-ago regular price when considering a short-term promotion, while Rich argued that understanding the full history is essential to judge whether the later price was a genuine discount.
Coles has pushed back against the ACCC’s claims, saying the case is about genuine discounts rather than illusory pricing. The retailer maintains that any price increases were warranted by inflation—which reached a 30-year high during the period in question—and by cost pressures from suppliers.
The ACCC’s action follows a broader inquiry into Australia’s supermarket sector, which a consumer group called CHOICE pointed to as among the world’s most profitable. CHOICE’s Andy Kelly emphasized that, in a cost-of-living crisis, clear and transparent pricing is crucial, and promotions should not obscure rising costs.
Coles is slated to present its defense in due course, arguing that shoppers benefited from real discounts and that the company acted within market conditions. The outcome of this trial could influence how retailers design promotions and disclose price movements in the future. The case remains ongoing, with observers watching closely for signals about fair pricing practices and consumer trust in big-name supermarkets.
Would you rather promotions always show the full price history in plain terms, or do you think current discount labels are enough if the final price saved is real? Share your thoughts in the comments.
