Australian Court Finds Coles Supermarkets Misled Shoppers With ‘Down Down’ Discounts

Key Takeaways

• Federal Court Finds Coles Misled Consumers: The Court ruled that Coles made false or misleading representations through parts of its “Down Down” pricing campaign, siding with the ACCC in 13 of 14 sample promotions reviewed.
• Discount Claims Were Central to the Case: The ACCC alleged Coles temporarily increased prices before later promoting products as discounted, creating the appearance of savings that were not genuine.
• Case Highlights Growing Focus on Consumer Transparency: The ruling reflects broader regulatory scrutiny around whether corporate messaging creates misleading impressions, even when representations may appear technically defensible.
• Compliance and Pricing Governance Risks Exposed: The decision underscores the importance of strong internal controls, promotional oversight, and governance processes around marketing and pricing practices.
• Further Penalties Still to Come: The Federal Court will determine penalties and other orders sought by the ACCC at a later stage.

Deep Dive

The Australian Federal Court case against Coles Supermarkets Australia was, on paper, about supermarket shelf pricing. In practice, it became something larger and more uncomfortable for corporate compliance teams. Because once a company trains consumers to trust a label, a slogan, or a pricing program, the legal question is no longer just what the numbers technically say. It becomes whether the overall impression being created can survive scrutiny.

On Thursday, the Court found much of Coles’ long-running “Down Down” campaign could not.

The ruling followed proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which alleged Coles temporarily increased the prices of hundreds of products before later advertising them under the retailer’s signature “Down Down” promotion at prices that were equal to, or higher than, the products’ earlier prices before the increases.

The proceedings covered 245 products sold between February 2022 and May 2023.

At the liability hearing, the Court examined an agreed sample list of products drawn from the broader pool. Two of those products appeared in the “Down Down” program twice, resulting in 14 promotional tickets being reviewed. The Court found 13 of those representations were misleading.

The products themselves were deeply ordinary. Arnott’s Shapes biscuits. Toothpaste. Butter. Laundry liquid. Weet-Bix. Tissues. Formula. Pet food. That mattered.

Cases involving consumer law often turn on the experience of an ordinary shopper moving quickly through an ordinary transaction. The ACCC argued customers encountering the “Down Down” branding would reasonably believe they were seeing meaningful price reductions on household essentials. According to the regulator, many of those discounts were effectively manufactured by temporarily raising prices beforehand.

The Court agreed that the representations breached Australian Consumer Law.

“We welcome the Court’s finding that Coles breached the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said following the ruling.

Cass-Gottlieb said the regulator pursued the case after receiving complaints from consumers and because it believed the pricing practices made it more difficult for shoppers to identify genuine value while purchasing everyday necessities.

For governance, risk, and compliance professionals, the decision lands well beyond grocery retail.

Regulators globally have become increasingly focused on what consumers are led to believe, not merely what companies can defend through narrow technical interpretations. Whether the issue involves sustainability claims, AI transparency, cybersecurity assurances, subscription practices, or pricing representations, enforcement agencies are paying closer attention to the gap between marketing narratives and operational reality.

The Coles ruling fits squarely into that broader pattern.

The ACCC’s case did not hinge on hidden fine print or especially complex financial mechanisms. The alleged misconduct sat openly on store shelves in large promotional signage tied to one of Australia’s most recognizable retail campaigns. That visibility likely amplified the regulator’s concerns around consumer trust and corporate accountability.

The “Down Down” program was introduced by Coles in 2010 as a long-term pricing initiative designed to reduce the regular shelf prices of frequently purchased products and provide shoppers with predictable value. Over time, the campaign became one of the company’s defining consumer brands.

That prominence also raised the stakes. By tying a broad corporate value proposition to recurring discount claims, the campaign moved beyond isolated advertising and into something closer to an enterprise-wide trust signal. From a risk and internal controls perspective, that creates pressure for pricing governance, promotional review processes, and compliance oversight to operate with far greater rigor than they might for ordinary short-term marketing campaigns.

The Court has not yet determined penalties or other orders sought by the ACCC. The regulator separately launched proceedings against Woolworths Group Limited over similar allegations tied to discount pricing practices. Judgment in that matter remains pending before the Federal Court.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.