The court has spoken: Coles' Down Down promotions were misleading
The Federal Court found Coles misled customers in 13 of 14 Down Down promotional tickets examined. 245 products. 15 months. Here is what the ruling means.
On 14 May 2026, Justice Michael O'Bryan of the Federal Court handed down a ruling that should make every Australian who has ever trusted a "Down Down" promotion stop and think. The court found that Coles misled customers in 13 of 14 promotional tickets examined. The conduct was not isolated. It covered 245 products over 15 months.
What the court found.
The ACCC brought proceedings against Coles alleging that its "Down Down" promotions were misleading. The court agreed. Justice O'Bryan found that Coles temporarily increased the price of products by at least 15% for a short period, sometimes just one week, then placed them on "Down Down" promotion at a price that was either higher than or the same as what customers had previously been paying.
The court examined 14 sample promotional tickets and found misleading representations in 13 of them. The conduct covered 245 products from February 2022 to May 2023.
The dog food that tells the whole story.
One example from the court proceedings illustrates the pricing pattern. A 1.2kg can of Nature's Gift dog food had been selling at $4 for close to 300 days. Coles increased the price to $6 for about a week, then placed it on "Down Down" at $4.50.
Dog food, 1.2kg can
The tag said "Down Down." The "discount" price of $4.50 was 50 cents more than the $4.00 this product cost for around 10 months before the price was raised.
Illustrative chart. Price points based on evidence presented in the Federal Court proceedings (ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 598). Timeline simplified.
Notably, this product was the one ticket the court found was not misleading, because its "Down Down" ticket did not display a higher "was" price. The other 13 tickets, which did show a "was" price alongside the promotional price, were all found to contravene sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law.
What the court established
Justice O'Bryan determined that a product should remain at the higher "was" price for at least 12 weeks before a reduction can reasonably be promoted as a genuine discount. Coles was doing it for one week. Sometimes less.
Pinch's own data shows the same pattern is still happening.
The court case covered conduct from February 2022 to May 2023. But Pinch has been tracking 76,000+ grocery products across 112 weeks, and we have identified 230 products currently on "special" at prices higher than what customers were paying 6 to 18 months ago. Here is one example from Coles, tracked by Pinch.
Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+
The tag says 30% off. The "special" price of $15.40 is 62% more than the $9.50 this product cost for 16 straight weeks before the shelf price was raised.
Illustrative chart. Price points from Pinch tracking data, timeline simplified. One of 230 products currently showing this pattern.
245 products. Not a mistake.
This was not one store manager making an error. The court's findings covered 245 products across categories: dog food, household cleaners, groceries that families were buying every week. Over 15 months.
ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb welcomed the ruling, saying it "has increased transparency and accountability" and is "very timely for all retailers" to ensure they "make accurate discount and pricing claims." Penalties have not yet been determined. Coles and the ACCC have until 29 May 2026 to agree on penalties and other orders, which could include a donation to Foodbank. Reports indicate Coles could face penalties in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The ACCC has also brought separate proceedings against Woolworths.
The ACCC has brought separate civil proceedings against Woolworths alleging similar misleading pricing conduct involving 266 products under its "Prices Dropped" program. That case has not been determined. No findings have been made.
Why this ruling matters beyond the courtroom.
For Australian families budgeting carefully on grocery bills, this ruling is vindication. You were right to be suspicious of those promotions. Your scepticism was justified.
But the ruling also exposes a structural problem. The ACCC had to pursue years of investigation and a Federal Court proceeding to prove what would have been visible from the price history: that these "discounts" were not genuine. The data existed inside Coles' systems. Customers simply could not see it.
In our view, the antidote to misleading pricing is transparency. Real price history. The ability to see what a product actually cost last month, last quarter, last year. Not what a retailer claims it cost, but what you actually paid.
That is why independent price tracking matters:
- Journalists need data to investigate grocery pricing across retailers and time periods.
- Researchers need to study pricing patterns at scale, not anecdote by anecdote.
- Consumer advocates need evidence to support complaints to the ACCC and parliamentary inquiries.
- Regular Australians need to see the actual trajectory of what they are paying, before they trust a red tag.
See real prices, not promotional claims
Pinch monitors publicly available retail prices across Coles, Woolworths, ALDI, and Harris Farm, with up to 52 weeks of price history on 74,000+ products. The Pinch API gives journalists, researchers, and developers access to the same data.
Disclosure
Pinch was not involved in the ACCC v Coles proceedings. This article represents Pinch's analysis of the publicly available ruling. Pinch monitors publicly available retail pricing information. While we strive for comprehensive data, Pinch data should be verified independently before use in formal proceedings.