Coles has been found guilty in the Federal Court of misleading shoppers with its ‘Down Down’ promotions.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday morning, Justice Michael O’Bryan found that in 13 of the 14 sample products submitted for judgment, the “Down Down” discount did not feature a lowered price and would have misled a customer.
Justice O’Bryan is also overseeing the ACCC’s separate case against Woolworths, which makes similar allegations about the nature of its “Prices Dropped” promotion. A verdict on the Woolworths case is yet to be delivered.
Both the Coles and Woolworths cases were brought forward after the ACCC’s supermarkets inquiry, which concluded in March 2025.
The Coles case began in February this year, with the supermarket’s defence centring on the claim that any price rises were due to suppliers facing cost pressures.
The legal action, brought by the ACCC, analysed whether 245 products and 255 promotions advertised as a discount actually lowered in price over the period from February 2022 to May 2023.
The Australian Financial Review reported on the court hearing that Coles priced a large bag of dog food at $4 for the 296 days ending February 7, 2023, then at $6 for one week, before decreasing it to $4.50, which it labelled as part of the “Down Down” promotion.
“At a time when many households are facing cost-of-living pressures, it’s more important than ever for consumers to be able to trust that promotions reflect genuine discounts. Hiking prices whilst telling consumers that prices are down has allowed Coles to have its cake and eat it too,” Andy Kelly, director of campaigns at consumer group Choice, said following the verdict.
“We continue to call on the Federal Government to implement the ACCC supermarkets inquiry recommendations in full, by introducing minimum information requirements for price displays and discount promotions, including the previous price of the product, the date range over which that previous price applied, and the percentage of the discount.”
Under Australian Consumer Law, the legislation against which this case was determined, each contravention can carry a maximum fine of $50 million. No such judgment on penalties has been made at this point.
