EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 598

ACCC v Coles Supermarkets

A Federal Court pricing case about Coles Down Down promotions, was/now price tickets and whether advertised discounts were genuine.

Federal Court of Australia14 May 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Discount campaigns need to be genuine, not just technically lower than a recently increased price.
  • A Federal Court pricing case about Coles Down Down promotions, was/now price tickets and whether advertised discounts were genuine.

Use this to check

  • A was/now comparison can be misleading if the was price was not a real trading price for long enough.
  • Internal promotional guardrails help, but the customer-facing impression still matters.
  • Businesses should keep evidence of pricing history, sales volumes and promotion approval decisions.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • The ACCC alleged that Coles temporarily increased prices on 245 products between February 2022 and May 2023, then placed those products on Down Down promotions at prices lower than the temporary increase but the same as, or higher than, the ordinary price before the increase.
    • A related class action ran alongside the regulator proceeding.
    • The Court examined Coles' pricing systems, the Down Down promotional program, internal promotional guardrails and sample products.
    • The case focused on what ordinary consumers would understand from price tickets comparing a current promotional price with a previous higher price.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court considered whether Down Down price tickets conveyed that the current price was a genuine reduction from the previous price, whether the previous prices had been established for a reasonable period, and whether sample product tickets were misleading or deceptive or contained false or misleading representations under the Australian Consumer...
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court delivered reasons on the ACCC and class-action proceedings and directed the parties to provide agreed or competing proposed orders giving effect to the reasons.
    • The judgment found that the relevant price tickets needed to be assessed by reference to the ordinary consumer impression and whether the advertised reduction was genuine in the circumstances.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Discount campaigns need to be genuine, not just technically lower than a recently increased price.
  • If a business advertises a was/now or price-drop promotion, it should be able to show that the comparison price was a real trading price for a meaningful period.

Useful next steps

  • A was/now comparison can be misleading if the was price was not a real trading price for long enough.
  • Internal promotional guardrails help, but the customer-facing impression still matters.
  • Businesses should keep evidence of pricing history, sales volumes and promotion approval decisions.
  • Online stores, retailers and marketplaces should review automated price-drop badges and comparison pricing.
  • Keep a pricing-history file for every was/now, price-drop or discount campaign.

Practical read

This case is a clear pricing lesson for any business that runs discounts, specials, launch offers or was/now campaigns. Customers do not read a price ticket like a lawyer. If the presentation tells them the current price is a real discount from the previous price, the business needs to make sure that impression is true.

The Court focused on whether the previous price had been a real trading price for long enough to make the advertised reduction genuine. The judgment is especially useful because it looks at internal guardrails as well as consumer-facing tickets. Coles had systems designed to manage Down Down promotions, but the Court still had to test whether the sample tickets conveyed a genuine reduction and whether that representation was misleading.

For small businesses, the lesson is practical. Before running a price-drop campaign, keep a record of the old price, how long it was charged, how many sales happened at that price, why the price changed, and how the offer is displayed online or in-store. A temporary price rise followed by a headline discount can create Australian Consumer Law risk even if the arithmetic on the ticket is technically correct.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Keep a pricing-history file for every was/now, price-drop or discount campaign.
  • Check how long the comparison price was actually charged before using it in a promotion.
  • Record why a price increased before a later discount is advertised.
  • Review website badges, POS tickets, email campaigns and marketplace listings together.
  • Get legal help before running a campaign based on recently increased prices.

Key takeaways

  • A was/now comparison can be misleading if the was price was not a real trading price for long enough.
  • Internal promotional guardrails help, but the customer-facing impression still matters.
  • Businesses should keep evidence of pricing history, sales volumes and promotion approval decisions.
  • Online stores, retailers and marketplaces should review automated price-drop badges and comparison pricing.

Related topics

Consumer Law & TradingDigital & EcommerceFood & Product Compliance

How Sprintlaw can help

Regulatory ComplianceWebsite Terms and Conditions