Australia’s leading supermarket chains, Coles and Woolworths, are set to negotiate with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding the number of products involved in ongoing court proceedings concerning claims of misleading discounts. The ACCC has initiated legal action against both retailers, suggesting they violated consumer laws by artificially inflating prices before cutting them for promotional campaigns, specifically Woolworths’ “Prices Dropped” and Coles’ “Down Down” promotions.
The ACCC alleges that while the promotional prices for various items—including dairy, pet food, personal care, and household cleaning products—were temporarily lowered from inflated prices, they were either equal to or higher than the regular prices. This practice has raised concerns over the authenticity of discounts offered during these promotions.
During a recent Federal Court session in Melbourne, disagreements arose over the number of sample products from each supermarket to be included as evidence in the trial. Coles initially agreed to a sample of 12 products, including six chosen by the ACCC, with the remaining three selected from their own list. However, last-minute requests to incorporate an additional four products sparked contention, with arguments suggesting that such additions could lead to the need for more witnesses and complicate the trial unnecessarily.
On the other hand, Woolworths proposed a narrower sample of six products while navigating the ACCC’s fluctuating sample numbers, which initially included 20 before being trimmed down. Both sides have been working towards understanding the rationale behind the recommended additional items and their impact on the case.
Justice Michael O’Bryan has called for both parties to reach a compromise and set a deadline of June 13 to finalise the list of products to be examined. He emphasised that limiting the sample size to below 20, ideally under 15, would facilitate a more efficient trial.
The consumer watchdog aims to impose significant penalties on Coles and Woolworths for the alleged infractions, which reportedly occurred over a span of 15 months. Both retailers maintain that the claims are unfounded and that the legal actions are based on misconceptions about their practices. As one of Australia’s largest supermarket duopolies, controlling approximately two-thirds of the market share, the outcome of this legal battle could have considerable implications for their operations and consumer trust.