Federal Court rules Coles misled consumers with 'Down Down' pricing campaign
The Federal Court has ruled that Coles engaged in misleading conduct through its 'Down Down' pricing campaign, which advertised discounts based on temporary price increases that were in effect for too short a period to be considered genuine. The judgment, delivered by Justice Michael O’Bryan, found that Coles violated Australian consumer law by promoting savings on 245 products where the 'was' price had not been available long enough for the subsequent 'discount' to be truthful. The ACCC argued that the practice misled shoppers, even if technically accurate. Coles defended the campaign as a response to supplier-driven inflation. The court acknowledged commercial justification for price increases but ruled that the marketing was deceptive. A similar case against Woolworths is pending.
While all three sources agree on the core legal finding—that Coles misled consumers through deceptive 'Down Down' pricing—they differ significantly in framing, tone, and depth. Stuff.co.nz provides the most complete picture by situating the ruling within wider market and regulatory dynamics. The Guardian delivers precise legal reporting, while ABC News Australia excels at making the issue accessible through data storytelling but sacrifices breadth for depth.
- ✓ The Federal Court ruled that Coles engaged in misleading conduct through its 'Down Down' pricing campaign.
- ✓ The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought the case, alleging deceptive pricing practices.
- ✓ Coles advertised 'discounts' by comparing current prices to a higher 'was' price that had only been in effect briefly.
- ✓ The court found that the 'was' prices were not in place long enough for the subsequent 'discounts' to be considered genuine under consumer law.
- ✓ Justice Michael O’Bryan presided over the case and delivered the judgment on May 14, 2026.
- ✓ Coles argued that price increases were due to supplier cost increases during inflationary periods, and that the discounts were genuine in that context.
- ✓ The case centered on 245 products where Coles used temporary price hikes to create the illusion of savings.
Emphasis on scale and impact
Stresses widespread deception ('millions of Australians') and financial consequences (share price, penalties).
Focuses on legal reasoning and procedural details, with less emphasis on public impact.
Emphasizes individual consumer experience through product-level pricing charts.
Use of data and evidence
Cites the 12-week benchmark set by the judge but does not use product-level visuals.
Reports aggregate findings (245 products, median 28-day periods) without visual aids.
Uses a detailed case study of baby formula with timeline data to illustrate the pattern.
Broader industry context
Explicitly links Coles case to ongoing proceedings against Woolworths, framing it as part of a systemic issue.
Mentions Woolworths briefly in passing as co-defendant in ACCC suit.
Does not mention Woolworths or broader industry implications.
Tone and language
Alarmist and consequentialist, using terms like 'industrial scale' and 'landmark ruling.'
Neutral, legalistic, and procedural.
Explanatory and illustrative, with subtle editorial judgment.
The Guardian
Framing: The Guardian frames the event as a legal judgment confirming consumer deception by Coles, emphasizing the court’s finding of misleading conduct under consumer law. The focus is on the legal reasoning and procedural details of the case, particularly Justice O’Bryan’s judgment and Coles’ internal planning.
Tone: Formal, judicial, and factually dense. The tone is measured and reportorial, aligning with a traditional news wire or legal reporting style.
Proper Attribution: Explicitly attributes statements to Justice Michael O’Bryan and ACCC legal counsel, e.g., 'O’Bryan said if the average shopper had known...'
"O’Bryan said if the average shopper had known the 'was' prices... they would not have thought the discounts were genuine."
Comprehensive Sourcing: References trial proceedings, ACCC allegations, and Coles’ legal arguments, providing a balanced procedural account.
"During its trial in February, Coles conceded that by the time it raised the price... it had already planned... the new 'Down Down' price."
Narrative Framing: Presents the case as a 'landmark decision for the supermarket industry,' suggesting broader regulatory implications.
"a landmark decision for the supermarket industry"
Balanced Reporting: Acknowledges Coles’ argument that price increases were due to supplier pressures and inflation.
"Coles had been meeting requests from suppliers"
ABC News Australia
Framing: ABC News Australia frames the event through data visualization and illustrative pricing patterns, using a single product (baby formula) to demonstrate how the 'Down Down' campaign misled consumers. The emphasis is on making the abstract legal finding concrete through specific, relatable examples.
Tone: Explanatory and illustrative. The tone is accessible and educational, designed to help readers understand complex pricing tactics through charts and timelines.
Framing By Emphasis: Focuses on the baby formula case study, using it to represent the broader pattern of 245 products.
"The pricing patterns of these six products help us understand why Coles has been found guilty"
Appeal To Emotion: Uses phrases like 'utterly misleading' and quotes counsel’s rhetorical question ('Why on earth are you telling...') to evoke skepticism toward Coles’ messaging.
"Why on earth are you telling your customers the price is going down? They're not."
Vague Attribution: Refers to 'data provided to the court by the ACCC' without specifying source methodology or sample size.
"according to data provided to the court by the ACCC"
Editorializing: Describes the marketing as 'literally true but also utterly misleading,' blending factual and evaluative language.
"ACCC argued this kind of marketing is 'literally true' but also 'utterly misleading'"
Stuff.co.nz
Framing: Stuff.co.nz frames the event as a large-scale consumer deception with significant financial and regulatory consequences, emphasizing the 'industrial scale' of the misconduct and potential penalties. It also situates the Coles case within a broader industry pattern by referencing the parallel Woolworths case.
Tone: Sensational and consequentialist. The tone underscores gravity and systemic implications, with language like 'landmark ruling' and 'misled millions.'
Sensationalism: Uses phrases like 'misled millions of Australians for years' and 'industrial scale' to amplify the perceived harm.
"misled millions of Australians for years... on an industrial scale"
Framing By Emphasis: Highlights market reaction (share price drop) and potential penalties to underscore significance.
"Coles’ share price dropped slightly... down more than 2%"
Comprehensive Sourcing: References both the Coles case and the pending Woolworths case, providing broader context.
"O’Bryan’s judgment comes ahead of his ruling in separate, but very similar proceedings against Woolworths"
Proper Attribution: Quotes Justice O’Bryan directly on the 12-week threshold for genuine discounts.
"The relevant products were not sold at the 'was' price... for a reasonable period"
Stuff.co.nz
Provides the most comprehensive narrative by integrating legal findings, market impact, and broader industry context (including the Woolworths case). It also clearly states the 12-week benchmark established by the court.
The Guardian
Offers detailed procedural and legal context, including Coles’ internal planning and judicial reasoning, but lacks discussion of financial or systemic implications.
ABC News Australia
Strong on explanatory clarity through data visualization but narrow in scope, focusing on a few products and omitting key details like the 12-week rule and broader regulatory context.
No related content
Supermarket giant’s ‘Down Down’ discounts misled customers on an industrial scale, court finds
Court rules Coles misled shoppers with its ‘Down Down’ discount campaign
Coles has been found to have misled shoppers. These charts show how