00:01In a stunning judgment, Justice Michael O'Brien has found that Coles misled shoppers on the
00:08discounts it charged on its down-down promotional program. And it did this because it didn't
00:15sell the product at the higher WAS price for long enough. So based on Coles' own policies
00:22at the time, Coles had a policy that it must sell a product for 12 weeks at a higher price
00:30before it could be reduced and put on the down-down discounting program. And it didn't do this
00:36on a number of items that were examined as part of the case. He found that 13 out of 14
00:43down-down promotional tickets that were used weren't sold for long enough at the higher
00:49price. And so what was shown on the ticket, the higher WAS price with a slash-through and
00:55then a discounted price, was misleading because the product was sold usually at a lower price
01:02for a much longer period preceding that higher price and then the promotion. And an ordinary
01:09shopper would want to know what the previous regular price had been. And because of that,
01:16it was not a genuine discount and it was misleading. And so a stunning judgment today. Coles has been
01:23defending the case and fought it bitterly and will be very disappointed in this outcome.
01:30We took these proceedings because we were concerned that the Coles promotional pricing practices in the
01:38down-down program were making it hard for consumers to identify genuine value for money
01:44in their purchases of essential products. We received complaints from consumers. We know how important
01:52it is for consumers to obtain real value in their supermarket purchases. So we decided to test these pricing
02:02practices in court. It's only in the last few minutes I've received a statement from them. It says
02:08its priority has always been delivering value to customers. It also found that, it pointed out that
02:15the court found that price increases did result from supplier cost price increases and were commercially
02:23justifiable. This was part of the judgment where the judge pointed out that Coles hadn't inflated the
02:31higher price in order to make the discount look bigger than it really was. That wasn't part of the
02:36case. So Coles has pointed out that that was significant for it, but it hasn't said whether it
02:43will appeal the case. So, you know, it said it's reviewing the judgment. It's only just come down,
02:50but, you know, it's important guidance for shoppers and retailers about discount pricing. So
02:57we'll be fascinating to see whether Coles does appeal the judgment or whether it just, you know,
03:03submits to the judgment that's been determined today. And the penalties will be determined by the
03:10court at a later day and could be substantial. I think this judgment would send shockwaves through
03:15the business community. Any retailer in the country that engages in this kind of discount pricing will
03:23be reviewing its practices. If it hadn't been already, because the ACCC sued Coles and Woolworths back in
03:322024. And so the boundaries of this case have been well established. But I think what's been set down
03:40today is that the judge has said, well, in order to show a discount on a ticket for the supermarket
03:48sector, you know, you needed to sell these products for 12 weeks before discounting them. Not doing so
03:56was misleading and not a genuine discount. So you'll have retailers and other businesses having a look
04:02at their own practices now and going, well, are we doing enough to comply with the law? And I think
04:08you might see some changes if we haven't already seen them already to retailers discounting practices.
04:14You are done with the law. And you are done with the law. And it does not be the law.
04:15On Monday,
04:15you will get to the law. You are done with the law. And the law is done with the law.
04:17And the law has
Comments