Coles’ “Down Down” Discount Campaign Ruled Misleading by Court

A landmark federal court ruling has delivered a major blow to Coles, Australia’s second-largest supermarket chain, after Justice Michael O’Bryan found the retailer engaged in misleading marketing practices through its controversial “Down Down” discount campaign. The decision, delivered on Thursday, May 14, 2026, follows a case brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which alleged Coles systematically deceived shoppers between 2021 and 2023 by using promotional discounts that were not genuine savings.

The court determined that Coles sold 245 products at a fixed price for a median period of one year, then raised those prices for just 28 days before reintroducing a third, often more expensive or equal, price point. This cycle, the judge ruled, created the illusion of discounts while obscuring price increases during a period of high inflation. The ruling marks a significant victory for consumer protections and sets a precedent for how supermarkets structure promotional pricing.

This is not the first time Coles has faced scrutiny over its discounting practices. The ACCC had previously sued Coles and its rival Woolworths, with the Woolworths case still pending a separate ruling expected later this year. The court’s decision against Coles underscores growing regulatory pressure on Australia’s supermarket duopoly to ensure transparency in pricing strategies that directly impact household budgets.

The ACCC’s case against Coles hinged on the argument that the “Down Down” campaign misled consumers into believing they were receiving genuine savings when, in reality, the discounts were a tactic to mask price hikes. Justice O’Bryan’s judgment explicitly stated that an ordinary consumer would not reasonably believe the discounts were authentic, given the short duration of the reduced prices compared to the prolonged periods of higher pricing.

Coles has not yet issued a public response to the ruling, but the decision carries significant financial and reputational implications. The supermarket giant could face penalties, including mandatory corrective advertising or financial remedies, though the exact terms of any penalty have not yet been announced. The case also raises broader questions about consumer trust in supermarket pricing strategies, particularly in an economic climate where inflation has heightened sensitivity to grocery costs.

For shoppers, the ruling may lead to greater scrutiny of promotional pricing across the industry. The ACCC’s success in this case could embolden regulators to take further action against similar practices, potentially forcing supermarkets to adopt clearer and more transparent discounting methods. The outcome also comes as Australians continue to grapple with the cost-of-living crisis, making the ACCC’s intervention a critical moment for consumer advocacy.

As the ACCC prepares to finalize its case against Woolworths, the Coles ruling serves as a warning to retailers about the legal and ethical risks of misleading pricing tactics. The decision reinforces the ACCC’s role as a guardian of fair competition and consumer protection in Australia’s retail sector.