ACCC accuses Coles of 'planned' campaign to mislead customers   :(

16 Feb 2026
ABC News

The ACCC has delivered its opening remarks in the landmark Federal Court case against Coles.

In short:
There has been intense debate about the pricing of more than 200 products at the opening of the landmark ACCC vs Coles court case.

Lawyers representing the consumer watchdog have labelled Coles's price discounts "utterly misleading".   

Coles has rejected the allegations as part of its opening remarks, which will continue tomorrow.


Supermarket giant Coles has been accused of a "planned" campaign to mislead customers over price discounts on the first day of a bombshell Federal Court case.

The consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), is suing the supermarket giant in a lawsuit that a former ACCC boss has called "the case of the century".

The opening arguments this morning looked at the prices Coles charged for 245 common household products under its famous "Down Down" promotions. The promotional program has been in place since 2010.

The ACCC's legal counsel, Garry Rich, claimed in his opening remarks Coles had jacked up its prices for a short period before discounting them to a price that was actually more than, or the same as, the regular price.

Here's what's at stake when the ACCC takes Coles to court

The "case of the century" is set to play out in the federal court this month, with the ACCC taking on supermarket giant Coles for what it claims are "illusory" discounts.

Mr Rich said Coles customers had been repeatedly deceived by the supermarket and the pricing was not "fair dinkum".

"Why on earth are you telling your customers the price is going down? They're not,"  he said.   :(
Evidence would show the conduct was "planned" and Coles had "disguised" price rises as price discounts, he said.

Internal compliance documents from Coles about the "Down Down" program showed there were key changes to policy guardrails on the discount program before the allegedly misleading conduct, he added.

Mr Rich alleged all but one of the promotions would have been prohibited under the earlier policy and the price changes had more to do with the commercial consideration of chasing Woolworths on pricing.


Dog food pricing 'utterly misleading'
There was also intense debate over the meaning of the price of dog food and what a reasonable shopper would have thought, with Justice Michael O'Bryan pushing back on important elements of the ACCC case.

For a period of almost 300 days between April 2022 and February 2023 Mr Rich told the court that Coles offered a 1.2 kilogram loaf of Nature's Gift Wet Dog Food for $4.


The pricing of this Nature's Gift dog food was the focus of the ACCC's opening arguments.

Then for seven days the price rose by 50 per cent to $6.

On the eighth day the price was set at $4.50 — 13 per cent more than customers had been paying for all but seven of the previous 303 days — with Coles labelling the product "Down, Down".

Mr Rich said while that statement was "literally true" it was also "utterly misleading".

"It did not disclose that a reasonable consumer would not have understood that Coles had increased the price to $6 for just 7 days, immediately before the promotion, and that for 296 days before that, the price was $4,"  he said.
"By making the statement it did, without disclosing those crucial qualifying facts, Coles led reasonable consumers into error.

"It caused them to assume that the "Down, Down" price of $4.50 was a genuine reduction to, or discount from, the previous regular price of the product. That assumption was wrong.

"A reasonable consumer who knew the real facts would not think the price of the dog food has gone down, nor would they think that a price of $4.50 would be a genuine reduction or discount."


Coles has been accused of a "planned" campaign to mislead customers. 

Justice O'Bryan pushed back and argued the first, or "regular" price, in the case of the dog food at $4 was "irrelevant".

He said circumstances had changed due to an increase in costs and it was not a reasonable comparison with the "Down, Down" price of $4.50.

Mr Rich did not agree.

"You can't tell that the second price is a short-term price unless you understand the history of the product," he said.

Coles rejects allegations
Coles was able to make a brief response in opening remarks this afternoon.

John Sheahan KC rejected the ACCC's allegations Coles ran a planned campaign to mislead consumers.

He said customers would have been aware they were shopping in an environment of "sudden materially increasing prices".

"Grocery shoppers at Coles are much more attuned to these things than anyone around these tables are likely to be," Mr Sheahan said.

The tactics Coles and Woolworths use to keep prices high, and competitors out

Coles has reported record profits and been accused of price gouging in recent years, however this case will not offer a verdict on that.

An ACCC report last year found that Australia had one of the most profitable supermarket sectors in the world.


Andy Kelly says supermarkets must have clear, transparent price displays.

Consumer group CHOICE welcomed the Federal Court action and said supermarket promotions had a "significant influence" on how people made purchasing decisions.

"During a cost-of-living crisis, retailers should be doing all they can to ensure clear, transparent pricing — not obscuring rising prices with confusing promotions," director of campaigns and communications Andy Kelly said.

"This court case is not only a wake up call for Coles, but for other retailers who may be engaging in similar practices."   :(

Coles are bastards.

Crap like this has been going on since I was a boy:


https://www.noticer.news/coles-accused-fake-discounts-accc/

In its court filing, the ACCC provides the example of a 16 pack of Strepsils Throat Lozenges Honey & Lemon. According to the ACCC, this product had been for sale on a “Down Down” promotion at a price of A$5.50 for at least 649 days.

The ACCC says on 12 October 2022, Coles increased the price to $7 for 28 days, then reduced it back to $6 on a “Down Down” promotion, 9% higher than the previous price of $5.50.

whiteknight wrote on Feb 16^th, 2026 at 5:45pm:

Coles has reported record profits and been accused of price gouging in recent years, however this case will not offer a verdict on that.    :(

How much tax does Coles pay on their profits?

Do the mum and dad investors who bought shares in Coles get a return on their investment when profits are up?

Do the Aldi profits go in the pocket of some foreigner?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 16^th, 2026 at 10:38pm:

whiteknight wrote on Feb 16th, 2026 at 5:45pm: Coles has reported record profits and been accused of price gouging in recent years, however this case will not offer a verdict on that.    :( How much tax does Coles pay on their profits? Do the mum and dad investors who bought shares in Coles get a return on their investment when profits are up? Do the Aldi profits go in the pocket of some foreigner?

Coles =
“Major Shareholders: As of early 2026, top institutional holders include BlackRock, Inc. (approx. 6.22%) and The Vanguard Group, Inc. (approx. 6.02%)”

Who owns Blackrock and vanguard ( you have to dig deep)=

Who is the actual owner of BlackRock?

“Laurence Douglas Fink (born November 2, 1952) is an American billionaire businessman. He is a co-founder, chairman, and CEO of BlackRock, an American multinational investment management corporation. BlackRock is the largest money-management firm in the world with more than US$10 trillion in assets under management.”


Mum and dad investors are just cannon fodder.

Cole’s profit flows  to the mighty 🇺🇸

Daves2017 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2026 at 11:17pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 16th, 2026 at 10:38pm: whiteknight wrote on Feb 16th, 2026 at 5:45pm: Coles has reported record profits and been accused of price gouging in recent years, however this case will not offer a verdict on that.    :( How much tax does Coles pay on their profits? Do the mum and dad investors who bought shares in Coles get a return on their investment when profits are up? Do the Aldi profits go in the pocket of some foreigner? Coles = “Major Shareholders: As of early 2026, top institutional holders include BlackRock, Inc. (approx. 6.22%) and The Vanguard Group, Inc. (approx. 6.02%)” Mum and dad investors are just cannon fodder. Cole’s profit flows  to the mighty 🇺🇸

So 2 major US shareholders have 12.24%?

I sold my Coles shares when they got rid of shareholder discount then bought Woolworths shares.

Coles isn't that bad when thinking about value to Australia.

Unlike ALDI which is fully foreign owned.

Dividends are not spectacular but are fairly steady and growing.

Profit is less than 3%

Dividends
https://i.imgur.com/hRM1qb8.jpeg

Profit Margin
https://i.imgur.com/hm9s9oA.jpeg

Expenditure
https://i.imgur.com/wgNpQrF.jpeg

whiteknight wrote on Feb 16^th, 2026 at 5:38pm:

ACCC accuses Coles of 'planned' campaign to mislead customers   :( 16 Feb 2026 ABC News The ACCC has delivered its opening remarks in the landmark Federal Court case against Coles. In short: There has been intense debate about the pricing of more than 200 products at the opening of the landmark ACCC vs Coles court case. Lawyers representing the consumer watchdog have labelled Coles's price discounts "utterly misleading".    Coles has rejected the allegations as part of its opening remarks, which will continue tomorrow. Supermarket giant Coles has been accused of a "planned" campaign to mislead customers over price discounts on the first day of a bombshell Federal Court case. The consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), is suing the supermarket giant in a lawsuit that a former ACCC boss has called "the case of the century". The opening arguments this morning looked at the prices Coles charged for 245 common household products under its famous "Down Down" promotions. The promotional program has been in place since 2010. The ACCC's legal counsel, Garry Rich, claimed in his opening remarks Coles had jacked up its prices for a short period before discounting them to a price that was actually more than, or the same as, the regular price. Here's what's at stake when the ACCC takes Coles to court The "case of the century" is set to play out in the federal court this month, with the ACCC taking on supermarket giant Coles for what it claims are "illusory" discounts. Mr Rich said Coles customers had been repeatedly deceived by the supermarket and the pricing was not "fair dinkum". "Why on earth are you telling your customers the price is going down? They're not,"  he said.   :( Evidence would show the conduct was "planned" and Coles had "disguised" price rises as price discounts, he said. Internal compliance documents from Coles about the "Down Down" program showed there were key changes to policy guardrails on the discount program before the allegedly misleading conduct, he added. Mr Rich alleged all but one of the promotions would have been prohibited under the earlier policy and the price changes had more to do with the commercial consideration of chasing Woolworths on pricing. Dog food pricing 'utterly misleading' There was also intense debate over the meaning of the price of dog food and what a reasonable shopper would have thought, with Justice Michael O'Bryan pushing back on important elements of the ACCC case. For a period of almost 300 days between April 2022 and February 2023 Mr Rich told the court that Coles offered a 1.2 kilogram loaf of Nature's Gift Wet Dog Food for $4. The pricing of this Nature's Gift dog food was the focus of the ACCC's opening arguments. Then for seven days the price rose by 50 per cent to $6. On the eighth day the price was set at $4.50 — 13 per cent more than customers had been paying for all but seven of the previous 303 days — with Coles labelling the product "Down, Down". Mr Rich said while that statement was "literally true" it was also "utterly misleading". "It did not disclose that a reasonable consumer would not have understood that Coles had increased the price to $6 for just 7 days, immediately before the promotion, and that for 296 days before that, the price was $4,"  he said. "By making the statement it did, without disclosing those crucial qualifying facts, Coles led reasonable consumers into error. "It caused them to assume that the "Down, Down" price of $4.50 was a genuine reduction to, or discount from, the previous regular price of the product. That assumption was wrong. "A reasonable consumer who knew the real facts would not think the price of the dog food has gone down, nor would they think that a price of $4.50 would be a genuine reduction or discount." Coles has been accused of a "planned" campaign to mislead customers.  Justice O'Bryan pushed back and argued the first, or "regular" price, in the case of the dog food at $4 was "irrelevant". He said circumstances had changed due to an increase in costs and it was not a reasonable comparison with the "Down, Down" price of $4.50. Mr Rich did not agree. "You can't tell that the second price is a short-term price unless you understand the history of the product," he said. Coles rejects allegations Coles was able to make a brief response in opening remarks this afternoon. John Sheahan KC rejected the ACCC's allegations Coles ran a planned campaign to mislead consumers. He said customers would have been aware they were shopping in an environment of "sudden materially increasing prices". "Grocery shoppers at Coles are much more attuned to these things than anyone around these tables are likely to be," Mr Sheahan said. The tactics Coles and Woolworths use to keep prices high, and competitors out

Coles is blaming supplier costs for high retail prices.  Bernie Fraser is blamimg lack of competititon for the Coles-Woolworhs duopoly.

How do you break-up that duopoly, while guaranteeing lower prices?

Quote:

Coles is blaming supplier costs for high retail prices.

It is blaming all the costs. That's what you pay for. The cost of supplying the goods to you.

If coles was making 50c in the dollar, they would have a dozen new competitors overnight.

ACCC case against Coles
2026-02-16
greens.org.au
The Greens have welcomed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) Federal Court action against Coles over alleged misleading “specials” and pricing conduct.

Quotes attributable to Greens Leader Senator Larissa Waters:

“Another day, another big corporation ripping off ordinary people.

“Big supermarkets are using con ‘discounts’ to rip off shoppers already feeling cost-of-living pain like never before. Labor can not shrug off this blatant corporate price gouging that is driving inflation and making the cost of living worse for everyone.   

“Fake bargains and inflated shelf prices would explain Coles managing to squeeze $1 billion in profit out of ordinary people while they struggle to make ends meet.

“Labor must stand up to their big corporate donors who are making massive profits while everyone else struggles to get by.

“The Greens are proud to have led the charge on supermarket price gouging with our inquiry and divestiture Bill in the last parliament and we will continue to fight for a system that doesn’t put profits before people and farmers.”

Quotes attributable to Greens Economic Justice spokesperson Senator Nick McKim:

“The ACCC’s action against Coles today confirms what people across Australia already know -  when corporations have too much power, they use it to squeeze everyday people.”

“These alleged illusory ‘discounts’ are one symptom of an economy where dominant firms can rort the system while households struggle with cost-of-living pressures.”

“This case comes after the Greens-led Senate inquiry exposed how Coles and Woolworths use their market dominance to gouge prices and exploit customers.

“The ACCC itself has said competition is weak and that pricing behaviour needs scrutiny.”

“We need laws that make price gouging illegal across the economy, not just in supermarkets, so corporations can’t exploit times of financial pressure to hike prices with impunity.

“And we need divestiture powers so the ACCC and the Federal Court can break up firms that misuse their market power.”

The ACCC wants Coles to end up like Jewel Food Barns of old.
So cheap like a Closing Down Sale.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 16^th, 2026 at 5:54pm:

Coles are bastards.

What Coles is doing is standard practice in the retail trade.
It's been going on at least since I was a boy.

I used to work in that trade in the school holidays in my last few years at high school
and also at Uni especially for the Xmas rush - easy to pick up jobs then.
I remember writing out price tickets myself -
the boss would have a list of the real price -
you had to write a higher price - you made a guess -
crossed it off then wrote the true price underneath it.
Coles has just been singled out - they all do it.

I sometimes follow prices in other stores to this day.
I see it all the time especially in jewellery stores.
I remember a watch once -
it was on sale for $470, with $650 crossed off.
I bought the same watch model on eBay for $215 out of Singapore.  :)
It was a genuine Seiko - I even sent it to a real Seiko dealer to
have the advance/retard adjusted - and they did it all for free under warranty.  :)

Meanwhile ...

Real wages are "Down down".  :(

https://i.imgur.com/2mqpkUK.jpg

If Coles gets a $100 million fine will they put their prices up to pay for it?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 18^th, 2026 at 3:49pm:

If Coles gets a $100 million fine will they put their prices up to pay for it?

No.

The Executive Leadership Team will take a cut in pay and forgo any bonuses for the next two or three years.

;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 18^th, 2026 at 3:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 18th, 2026 at 3:49pm: If Coles gets a $100 million fine will they put their prices up to pay for it? No. The Executive Leadership Team will take a cut in pay and forgo any bonuses for the next two or three years. ;)

Wow - ripping people off -
is that what they taught her at Harvard?    :-/


Leah's qualifications include
a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School,
a Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) from Adelaide University and
a Bachelor of Science from Adelaide University.

They all do it bit tough to just go at Coles.

I’ve never actually seen in the federal or state budgets where these fines are received?

I asked a local member quite a time ago if there is any record of the fines being paid and received by the state or federal government and was provided no response.

How do we know if these fines are ever paid or enforced if there is no evidence available to public records?

Daves2017 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2026 at 4:39pm:

I’ve never actually seen in the federal or state budgets where these fines are received? I asked a local member quite a time ago if there is any record of the fines being paid and received by the state or federal government and was provided no response. How do we know if these fines are ever paid or enforced if there is no evidence available to public records?

Just check the ACCC Annual Reports.

e.g. https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/accc-aer-annual-report-2024-25_0.pdf

More here: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/accc-and-aer-annual-reports

Just think. That extra price hike pays to run the Supermarket to provide you with food and go towards building more Supermarkets to more people in a more accessible way.

Stop ya bloody whinging.

Jasin wrote on Feb 18^th, 2026 at 4:58pm:

Just think. That extra price hike pays to run the Supermarket to provide you with food and go towards building more Supermarkets to more people in a more accessible way. Stop ya bloody whinging.

Coles definitely ripped people off - they still do -
but they all do it -
that's what retail business is all about.
You don't make money by giving everyone a bargain at below cost price.   ::)

the idea is to make suckers think they are getting a bargain -

down down prices are down.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 18^th, 2026 at 4:43pm:

[quote author=Daves2017 link=1771227506/18#18 date=1771396751]I’ve never actually seen in the federal or state budgets where these fines are received? I asked a local member quite a time ago if there is any record of the fines being paid and received by the state or federal government and was provided no response. How do we know if these fines are ever paid or enforced if there is no evidence available to public records?

Just check them. Thank you for the links.

I see the “ reported figures “ but absolutely zero evidence that the actual money was received and by whom and where did that money actually go ( if you believe that they ever received it).

I simply have no trust whatsoever in our government at any level and firmly believe every Australian politician is simply on the take.

Example A -  Anika Wells.

Example B - “Taking a conservative approach, Acil Allen estimated that a WA NRL club would deliver $28 million in economic benefits annually, once competing. Based on these two sets of modelling, the financial support provided to the club will deliver a positive return to WA taxpayers”

“ AI

Will that 28 million be audited and proven or is it more of “ just a vibe “ believe me I work for the government kinda thing ?

If these fines are actually paid why aren’t the transactions publicly available?

The days of trusting the government are long over.

Transparency and prove it happened  and if you can’t what are you guilty of?

The government are proven liars and those not corrupt are simply incompetent.

Sorry , previous  post off topic, me bad.
On topic.
If you can believe what Cole’s is promoting via the main stream media they struggle to make a profit of 3%.

If that is correct anyone with shares and a brain would be selling quickly and moving to a more profitable business.

A profit of 3% is razor thin and a big struggle to keep the doors open.

If you believe them?

Retail has been doing this scam since trading first started.

It’s not just Cole’s.

Special mention to super cheap auto.

Shapes blunder: Coles admits to second ‘Down Down’ discount failure   :(

The Age
February 18, 2026

A former Coles executive has admitted the supermarket broke its own guidelines by promoting discounts on Arnott’s Shapes as part of its “Down Down” program too soon after raising its price, marking the second similar concession in as many days.   :(

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is pursuing Coles over alleged “illusory discounts” in which the supermarket raised prices before putting products on specials that were often higher than the original price.


Former Coles manager Rebecca Thompson leaves the Federal Court in Melbourne on Wednesday.

On the third day of ACCC’s case, Coles’ former head of commercial strategy, Rebecca Thompson, was asked about her role in negotiating the price of a multipack of Arnott’s Shapes biscuits from early March to May 2022.

The price of the box of biscuits, sold for $5 for a lengthy period under the “Down Down” program, rose to $5.50 under the same program, albeit with a four-week “price establishment” period in between, the court heard.

Coles sold the biscuits at a “white ticket” price of $6.50 for one week before it ran a 30 per cent special the following week. It then reverted to the white ticket price of $6.50 for two weeks before returning to the “Down Down” program at a new price of $5.50.

Thompson said the agreement struck between Coles and Arnott’s had forgotten to factor in a biannual 30 per cent discount campaign on certain Arnott’s brands.


Arnott’s Shapes were the focus of court proceedings on Wednesday.

Thompson had been going off advice from an Arnott’s representative, who had suggested including the biscuits in the “Down Down” program on an earlier date, according to email exchanges heard by the court.

“We’d cause confusion with customers by having a multitude of callouts that say these are not included in the promotion,” said Thompson. “This was an anomaly … it was an error, and we tried to rectify it with as [little] confusion as possible.”


Coles concedes mistake in ‘discounting’ item to make it more expensive after a week
The ACCC’s lead barrister, Garry Rich, SC, put to Thompson that the pricing “was not in accordance with the guardrails”.

“Yes, it was an error,” Thompson responded.

“You accept that the product had only been sold at that price for three out of the four weeks immediately prior to the ‘Down Down’ promotion commencing?” asked Rich.

“Yes,” said Thompson.

“You say that it’s his [the Arnott’s representative] fault,” said Rich. “No, I’m saying it’s human error,” Thompson responded.

After running the 30 per cent special, the price of the biscuits should have been held at the white ticket price for four weeks before returning to the “Down Down” program, she later explained.

On Tuesday, Coles lead barrister John Sheahan, KC, said it was a “mistake” and an outlier that Coles had raised the price of 1.2kg tins of chicken and vegetable Nature’s Gift Wet Dog Food from $4 to a new price of $6 for just seven days before introducing the “Down Down” price of $4.50.

This followed evidence from Monday, when the court heard of internal emails from a senior Coles manager who said it was not in the spirit of the marketing campaign to advertise a product as “Down Down” when it was cheaper only four weeks earlier.

Sheahan told the court earlier in the week that Coles’ price rises were determined by market forces, including inflation and pressure from suppliers, and its discounts were genuine.


Coles business category manager Via Lavdas also appeared on the stand on Wednesday, when she was asked about the same product from Arnott’s.

Lavdas had struck an agreement with Arnott’s that the supermarket would permit a price rise by increasing the biscuits’ “white ticket” price to $6.50 for four weeks, before returning to $5.50 under the “Down Down” program for 52 weeks, the court heard.

“You only accepted an increased cost on the basis that the product would be sold on a ‘Down Down’ promotion for $5.50 after those four weeks for that product,” said Rich. “Correct. That was the agreement,” said Lavdas.

“You wanted to get to a ‘Down Down’ price within the minimum period prescribed by the … guardrails,” said Rich. Lavdas agreed.

The ACCC launched legal action against both Coles and Woolworths in late 2024, alleging that both supermarkets misled consumers through pricing promotions that were actually higher, or the same as, the previous regular price. The supermarkets deny the claims.

The hearing continues on Thursday.

down down prices are down     ;D

👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2026 at 11:34am:

Quote: Coles is blaming supplier costs for high retail prices. It is blaming all the costs. That's what you pay for. The cost of supplying the goods to you. If coles was making 50c in the dollar, they would have a dozen new competitors overnight.

This isn't about supply or demand, it's about false advertising. The marketing model of Coles and Woolworths is based on setting consumer price expectations by falsely advertising discounts. Because they have a monopoly on groceries, the practice creates inflation.

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 19^th, 2026 at 11:13am:

freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2026 at 11:34am: Quote: Coles is blaming supplier costs for high retail prices. It is blaming all the costs. That's what you pay for. The cost of supplying the goods to you. If coles was making 50c in the dollar, they would have a dozen new competitors overnight. This isn't about supply or demand, it's about false advertising. The marketing model of Coles and Woolworths is based on setting consumer price expectations by falsely advertising discounts. Because they have a monopoly on groceries, the practice creates inflation. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

They do not have a monopoly. It does not even make sense to insist that two companies have a monopoly, that would be a duopoly. And other than the two exceptions noted, there are rules about how long you have to have the price up before you can say you have reduced it.

I am not really sure why any of this matters. If I want to compare the prices between Aldi, Coles, Woolies, IGA and the local independent, I compare the prices, not the history of advertised 'reductions'. Anyone who is swayed by a vague chant about 'prices are down' rather than the actual price deserves to be ripped off.

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 9:00am:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 19th, 2026 at 11:13am: freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2026 at 11:34am: Quote: Coles is blaming supplier costs for high retail prices. It is blaming all the costs. That's what you pay for. The cost of supplying the goods to you. If coles was making 50c in the dollar, they would have a dozen new competitors overnight. This isn't about supply or demand, it's about false advertising. The marketing model of Coles and Woolworths is based on setting consumer price expectations by falsely advertising discounts. Because they have a monopoly on groceries, the practice creates inflation. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? They do not have a monopoly. It does not even make sense to insist that two companies have a monopoly, that would be a duopoly. And other than the two exceptions noted, there are rules about how long you have to have the price up before you can say you have reduced it. I am not really sure why any of this matters. If I want to compare the prices between Aldi, Coles, Woolies, IGA and the local independent, I compare the prices, not the history of advertised 'reductions'. Anyone who is swayed by a vague chant about 'prices are down' rather than the actual price deserves to be ripped off.

But the prices aren't down, they're up, and designed to be so. Here in liberal democracies, we have a thing called civil law. If we're ripped off, we get to take you to court.

If you don't like this, I suggest you move to a country without a rule of law.

Perhaps you'd prefer a nice authoritarian country. Let's say Russia, or Chi-na, or North Korea.

Or any country where madams can be raped with a cactus, without censure.

Freeeeedom, innit.

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 9:00am:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 19th, 2026 at 11:13am: freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2026 at 11:34am: Quote: Coles is blaming supplier costs for high retail prices. It is blaming all the costs. That's what you pay for. The cost of supplying the goods to you. If coles was making 50c in the dollar, they would have a dozen new competitors overnight. This isn't about supply or demand, it's about false advertising. The marketing model of Coles and Woolworths is based on setting consumer price expectations by falsely advertising discounts. Because they have a monopoly on groceries, the practice creates inflation. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? They do not have a monopoly. It does not even make sense to insist that two companies have a monopoly, that would be a duopoly. And other than the two exceptions noted, there are rules about how long you have to have the price up before you can say you have reduced it. I am not really sure why any of this matters. If I want to compare the prices between Aldi, Coles, Woolies, IGA and the local independent, I compare the prices, not the history of advertised 'reductions'. Anyone who is swayed by a vague chant about 'prices are down' rather than the actual price deserves to be ripped off.

Yes - it is a duopoly - Coles & Woolworths

both have the same major shareholders.