Compensation next step for shoppers deceived by Coles

In handing down his judgment on Thursday, 14 May, Justice Michael O’Bryan found Coles breached the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 with respect to 13 of the 14 pricing tickets put before the court.

“I have concluded the Down Down tickets for the sample products conveyed a representation to ordinary consumers that Coles had reduced the price of the product from the ‘Was’ price and, implicitly, that the reduction in price involved a real or genuine discount.

“The vast majority of ordinary consumers, when shopping, would not have formed any conscious belief about the period for which the product had been offered for sale by Coles at the ‘Was’ price, beyond an intuitive sense that the discount being promoted was genuine and not artificial,” Justice O’Bryan said.

“Nevertheless, incorporated within the notion of a genuine discount from an identified previous price is the notion that the identified previous price was at a price at which the product had been ordinarily offered for sale by Coles for a reasonable period.”

Justice O’Bryan concluded the price increases resulted from supplier cost price increases and Coles adjusted in a “commercially justifiable manner”. That is, Coles did not select an “artificially high” “Was” price for the sample product to increase the perceived discount.

What the case turned on was the length of time the product was advertised at the “Was” price before being placed on Down Down.

VIEW ALL

Having considered Coles’ history of ticketed pricing, Justice O’Bryan concluded the Down Down tickets for the sample products would not have been misleading had they been sold at the “Was” price for a minimum period of 12 weeks before the Down Down promotion.

“This reflects a conclusion that, if an ordinary consumer were told that the product had been ordinarily sold by Coles at the ‘Was’ price for a period of 12 weeks immediately prior to the Down Down promotion, the consumer would believe that the Down Down price was a genuine discount to the ‘Was’ price,” Justice O’Bryan said.

“Conversely, if the ordinary consumer were told that the product had been ordinarily sold by Coles at the ‘Was’ price for a period that was materially shorter than 12 weeks, the consumer would not believe that the Down Down price was a genuine discount to the ‘Was’ price.”

The ACCC proceedings concern regulatory penalties only and does not provide compensation to affected consumers.

Gerard Malouf & Partners, or GMP Law, brought class action proceedings against Coles on behalf of lead applicant Benjamin Glenn Demery and group members. It was aligned with the ACCC proceedings to streamline determination of common liability issues.

Chairperson Gerard Malouf said it was a “wonderful result” for group members and “vindication for everyday Australians who deserve clarity and honesty in pricing of products”.

“Clearly the promotions were misleading, and there wasn’t clarity and transparency about the manner and approach undertaken by these major food market groups,” Malouf said in a statement to media.

“This is not just a win for supermarket patrons, but a significant win for all consumers in Australia in the future, as clear and unequivocally transparent pricing practices must be maintained.”

GMP Law said compensation will remain the focus of its class action, which concerns 255 affected products sold to Coles consumers, either in-store or online, between February 2022 and May 2023.

“Ultimately, we’ll have a situation where we’ll be able to refund group members significant sums of money depending on their purchases over the period in question,” Malouf said.

The opt-out deadline passed on 21 November 2025, and the proceedings continue on behalf of registered group members and the consumers who did not opt out.

Citation: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 598.