Court Slams Coles: “Down Down” Discounts Ruled Deceptive

Published on: May 14, 2026

In a major win for Australian consumers, the Federal Court ruled today (May 14, 2026) that supermarket giant Coles misled shoppers with its iconic “Down Down” campaign. The court found that hundreds of products were subjected to artificial price hikes just to make subsequent “discounts” look real.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Table of Contents

The “Was/Is” Strategy Exposed

The court identified a calculated pattern used by Coles between 2022 and 2023 to manufacture savings:

The Spike: Prices on 245 products were hiked by at least 15% for a very short window (often only four weeks).
The “Discount”: The items were then moved to a “Down Down” promotion.
The Reality: The new “discounted” price was actually higher than—or identical to—the price consumers were paying before the spike.

Example: Dog food that originally cost $4.00 was hiked to $6.00 for one week, then “slashed” to a “Down Down” price of $4.50. Shoppers thought they were saving $1.50, when they were actually paying 50 cents more than the original price.

Why the Court Intervened

Justice Michael O’Bryan was blunt in his assessment, noting that Coles took advantage of shoppers during a period of intense cost-of-living pressure.

Failure of Benchmarks: For a “was” price to be legal, it must exist for a “reasonable period.” Short-term spikes do not count.
Systemic Misconduct: Out of 14 sample products analyzed in detail, 13 were found to be part of a misleading scheme.
The 12-Week Rule: The ruling suggests that in the future, retailers may need to maintain a price for at least 12 weeks before they can legally claim a “was/is” discount against it.

The Fallout

While the verdict is in, the financial pain for Coles is just beginning.

Fines: The ACCC is pushing for “substantial” penalties. Given the scale of the conduct, these could reach into the tens of millions.
Woolworths is Next: A nearly identical case against Woolworths is currently moving through the courts, with a decision expected later this year.
Reputation Hit: Coles argued that rising supplier costs forced their hand, but the court ruled that commercial costs don’t give a business the right to use deceptive marketing.

The Bottom Line: If a deal looks too good to be true at the checkout, the Federal Court has confirmed that—at Coles—it frequently was.