MELBOURNE – A Federal Court ruling has exposed Coles supermarkets' 'Down Down' discount campaign as an exploitative scheme designed to mislead working families struggling to afford essential groceries. The court sided with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), finding that Coles' advertised discounts did not represent genuine savings, but rather a calculated manipulation of pricing designed to dupe consumers.

The landmark decision highlights the predatory practices of supermarket giants who exploit pricing loopholes to maximize profits at the expense of everyday Australians. Justice Michael O'Bryan's judgment delivered a blow to Coles, confirming that the 'Down Down' campaign was a deceptive tactic that disproportionately impacted low-income households reliant on perceived savings.

The ACCC's lawsuit against Coles and Woolworths revealed a disturbing pattern of promotional programs used to disguise price increases. This manipulation directly undermines the ability of working families to budget effectively and access affordable, nutritious food. The 'was/is' comparative pricing strategy, where Coles advertised products with inflated 'was' prices for short periods before offering a 'Down Down' price, was deemed misleading and harmful to consumers.

The court found that Coles' practice of selling 245 products at one price for a year, increasing it for 28 days, then reducing it to a similar or higher price was a calculated deception. This strategy targeted vulnerable shoppers who rely on the promise of discounts to make ends meet. The lack of transparency regarding the short duration of the 'was' prices further compounded the deception, preventing consumers from making informed purchasing decisions.

While Coles argued that the promotional prices were genuine discounts in response to rising wholesale costs, the court recognized this argument as a smokescreen. The reality is that Coles prioritized profit margins over ethical business practices, exploiting inflationary pressures to deceive consumers. The ruling underscores the urgent need for greater regulation of supermarket pricing practices to protect working families from corporate greed.

Justice O'Bryan's acknowledgment that the price increases were done in an “ordinary commercial way” is a damning indictment of the current system. It reveals a systemic problem within the supermarket industry where deceptive pricing practices are normalized and tolerated. The court's decision to uphold the ACCC's allegation sends a clear message that these practices are unacceptable and violate consumer law.