The Federal Court found that 13 of 14 Coles Down Down price tickets were misleading, siding with the ACCC's case that prices had been temporarily raised before being "dropped" as part of the promotion. Penalties will be determined at a hearing on June 10.
The ACCC alleged that Coles raised prices on hundreds of products for short periods before applying Down Down tickets that brought the price back to, or near, the original level. The court agreed on 13 of 14 products tested. The marketing said prices were going down. The data showed they went up first.
This is not a minor technical breach. Down Down is one of the most recognised price marketing campaigns in Australian retail history. The finding that its core premise was misleading on 93% of the products tested is significant, both for Coles and for any Australian brand running price-led marketing.
Why it matters
Price-led marketing is the foundation of Australian grocery retail. Coles, Woolworths and Aldi compete primarily on price perception, and campaigns like Down Down are designed to build that perception at scale. A Federal Court ruling that the campaign was misleading does not just create a penalty risk. It creates a trust risk.
Of tested Down Down products found misleading by the Federal Court (13 of 14)
For marketers outside grocery, the lesson is the same. If your marketing makes a claim, the underlying data needs to support it. The ACCC is increasingly willing to test whether promotional claims match operational reality, and the courts are willing to rule against major brands when they do not.
What to do about it
Audit any price-led or comparison-based marketing your business runs. If you are claiming discounts, savings or price drops, verify that the reference price is genuine and that the timeline is defensible. If your promotional pricing involves a temporary price increase before a reduction, you are running the same play that just cost Coles a Federal Court loss. Fix it before the ACCC notices.
