Coles in Court: Are “Down Down” Discounts Misleading Shoppers?
Coles, one of Australia’s largest supermarket chains, finds itself at the center of a landmark federal court case, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission questioning whether its famous “Down Down” promotions actually mislead shoppers. The case, which has captured national attention, revolves around whether discounts touted on hundreds of products were genuine or artificially inflated to appear as bargains.
The ACCC alleges that Coles briefly raised prices on certain items before dropping them slightly under the “Down Down” campaign, creating the illusion of a significant discount. The watchdog argues that many consumers, often in a hurry and focused on convenience, may have been misled into thinking they were getting a better deal than they actually were. “They read the ticket and believe the price has gone down,” ACCC barrister Garry Rich told the court. “They think it’s a genuine saving, but in reality, the previous price had only applied for a short period.”
Also Read:- Apple’s First Touchscreen MacBook Pro: Dynamic Island Comes to Laptops
- Toronto Hit by Fast-Moving Snowstorm: Roads Shut, Commute Chaos Looms
However, the trial has not been straightforward. Federal Court Justice Michael O’Bryan interrupted the ACCC’s closing statements, raising sharp questions about whether the regulator had sufficiently proven that the signage and promotions themselves conveyed a misleading message. The judge pointed out that the ACCC had not formally argued that shoppers interpreted the tickets in the way it now describes, suggesting potential gaps in the case.
Coles, on the other hand, maintains that the discounts were genuine. The company argues that temporary price increases reflected normal market pressures, including supplier recommendations and inflation. Their legal counsel emphasized that the “Down Down” reductions were real and that even if the previous price had been in place for only a short time, customers still received legitimate savings. Internal documents and witness testimony revealed that some promotions did not strictly follow Coles’ internal guidelines, with employees admitting certain items were put on discount faster than company policy allowed.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond Coles. If the ACCC succeeds, it could reshape how supermarkets advertise discounts and how regulators define misleading promotions. Shoppers could gain stronger protections against deceptive pricing tactics and other retailers may face greater scrutiny over their sales campaigns. Conversely, a ruling in Coles’ favor could reaffirm the flexibility companies have in pricing strategies, particularly when accounting for supplier input and market conditions.
As this high-profile trial continues, the eyes of consumers, legal experts and the retail industry remain firmly on the courtroom. Every ruling and counterargument is shaping a case that could define consumer protection standards in Australia for years to come. Stay tuned as we continue to follow this unfolding story and break down the decisions that could change the way Australians shop.
Read More:
0 Comments