Imagine discovering that the bargain you thought you snagged at your favorite supermarket was actually no deal at all—or worse, you ended up paying more. This is the shocking allegation at the heart of a high-stakes federal court battle between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and retail giant Coles. But here's where it gets controversial: a former Coles manager has admitted to 'human error' in the handling of Arnott's Shapes pricing during a 'Down Down' promotion, sparking a debate over whether this was a simple mistake or part of a larger strategy to mislead shoppers.
On the third day of what's been dubbed 'the case of the century,' the ACCC accused Coles of orchestrating a 'planned' campaign to deceive customers with fake or 'illusory' discounts on everyday items. The watchdog claims Coles temporarily inflated prices before slashing them and labeling the items as part of their 'Down Down' promotion. For instance, Arnott's Shapes Multipack 375g Variety Pack, which had been sold at $5 for over 340 days, saw its price bumped to $5.50 under the same promotion—a 10% increase disguised as a discount.
And this is the part most people miss: Coles' internal guidelines, or 'guardrails,' required a 'was' price to be displayed for four weeks before a 'Down Down' discount could be applied. This was to ensure transparency and prevent customer confusion. However, in the case of Shapes, Coles bypassed this rule. The product was sold at $6.50 for one week, discounted by 30% the next, and then returned to $6.50 for two more weeks before being labeled as $5.50 under the 'Down Down' promotion. When pressed, former Coles manager Rebecca Thompson admitted, 'Yes, it was an error.'
The ACCC argues that shoppers were misled into believing they were getting a bargain when, in reality, they were paying more than the product's regular price. Coles, however, disputes this, claiming the discounts were genuine and blaming unprecedented supplier price hikes and spiraling inflation for any inconsistencies. They also argue that the ACCC has failed to define what constitutes a 'regular price' and how long it should be offered before a discount is applied.
Here’s the controversial question: Is this a case of innocent human error, as Coles claims, or a deliberate tactic to boost profits at the expense of consumer trust? The trial continues, but one thing is clear: the outcome could reshape how retailers approach pricing strategies and transparency. What do you think? Is Coles getting a fair shake, or is this a clear-cut case of misleading advertising? Let us know in the comments!
