00:01The ACCC is accusing Woolworths of breaking consumer law on the prices it charged for
00:08more than 260 items, everything from household snacks to staple food items to laundry powder
00:16to dog food.
00:17And what the allegation is, is that Woolworths sold a product at one price, usually for hundreds
00:24of days, and then jacked the price up for a short period, sometimes for a period of weeks,
00:30and then reduced the price on a prices drop promotion and sold it then.
00:37And what the ACCC says is that while shoppers were told when they went into a store on the
00:43little price tag that they were saving money, in most cases the cost had actually gone up
00:48or was the same as the original price, but that wasn't disclosed clearly to the shoppers
00:55and that was misleading under consumer law, and that's obviously heavily contested as
00:59part of this case.
01:01Coles is also being sued over similar allegations.
01:04What's at stake here?
01:06Yes, we had the hearings in the Coles case in February and now the judge is reserved for
01:12judgement.
01:13We're waiting to see what will happen, and the stakes couldn't be higher for all here,
01:19so for the supermarkets they face fines of $50 million or more, some people, some experts
01:25think it could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and if they do lose there's also
01:30class action lawsuits that could result in further damages, and there's also reputational damage,
01:37this will harm the trust of the big supermarkets if they do lose.
01:41But, conversely, if the ACCC does lose the case, its judgement will be seriously called
01:47into question.
01:48It could transform how prices are set and discounts offered across all of business, not just supermarkets,
01:57but clothing, electronics, lots and lots of products.
02:02For the ACCC, it's more than just a big fine.
02:07It's getting a message across to all business, no pergus discounts.
02:15Michael Woolworths is defending the case, what's it arguing?
02:18Yes, just like Coles it is defending the case, and the arguments in defence are quite similar
02:23between the supermarkets. What it argues is this was a period of high inflation, and suppliers
02:30were banging down its door in large numbers to increase the price of its products, and it was
02:36trying to put the products after a price increase back onto prices drop quickly to reduce the impact of
02:44that price rise on shoppers. But, also, it says these were real discounts. They weren't fake, because even though
02:52it did charge the higher price for a short period, say weeks, well, they really did charge that higher price,
02:58and then there was a saving, even if that higher price was only charged for a short period.
03:04So, all of this will play out over the next couple of weeks as the hearings continue.
Comments