The Federal Court found Coles misled shoppers by advertising discounts using 'was/is' pricing where the higher 'was' price had been in place for too short a time to justify the discount. The case focused on roughly 245 products promoted between February 2022 and May 2023 under the "Down Down" campaign, which the court said created a false impression of genuine savings [1, 2, 3, 4].
Justice Michael O'Bryan ruled the timing of Coles's promotions was misleading to consumers, even though price increases were made commercially to meet supplier cost rises. He said if shoppers had known the higher "was" prices were held only briefly, they would not have perceived the discounts as real [1, 2, 3].
The court highlighted that Coles initially kept products at a "was" price for about a year, but this median duration shrank to as little as four weeks by March 2022 before discounts were applied. On many occasions, the discounted price was equal to or even higher than the original price. Internal company "guardrails" intended to keep "was" prices for a set period were shortened under inflationary and competitive pressures from rival Woolworths [1, 2, 4].
A detailed audit of 14 products during the trial showed 13 had misleading discounts because the "was" prices were not held for a reasonable minimum period. Justice O'Bryan said, "The 'Down Down' ticket would not have been misleading if the products had been sold at the 'was' price for a minimum of 12 weeks" [2].
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought the case against Coles and Woolworths starting in 2024, focusing on consumer law compliance [1, 2]. The judgment by Justice O'Bryan was 523 paragraphs long and delivered on May 14, 2026 [4].
A case management hearing related to a class action lawsuit is scheduled for June 10, 2026 [2].
