Coles, Woolworths, And The Discount Deception
For years, Coles and Woolworths sold Australians a simple promise: bright shelf tickets, familiar slogans and the reassurance that a lower price meant a real saving.
But court action, regulatory scrutiny and a major supermarket inquiry have sharpened a harder question for consumers in a cost-of-living crisis: when the market is dominated by two giants, how easy is it to tell whether a discount is genuine at all?
Australia’s grocery market has long been dominated by Coles and Woolworths. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s 2024–25 supermarkets inquiry found the sector to be oligopolistic and concluded that Coles and Woolworths have limited incentive to compete vigorously with each other on price.
The same inquiry also found that the major supermarkets use promotions and loyalty systems in ways that can make it harder for shoppers to judge whether they are really getting good value. For households already stretched by rising rents, energy bills and mortgage repayments, that finding cut to the heart of everyday trust at the checkout.
That concern moved from supermarket aisles to the Federal Court in 2024, when the ACCC launched separate proceedings against both Coles and Woolworths over hundreds of products promoted through the “Down Down” and “Prices Dropped” campaigns.
The regulator alleged that both chains temporarily increased the price of everyday items, then advertised a later reduction as a saving even when the new promotional price was still the same as, or higher than, the earlier long-term price. In other words, the discount looked meaningful on the ticket while the bargain itself may have been illusory.
In May 2026, the Federal Court found that Coles had engaged in misleading conduct in 13 of 14 sample promotions examined in the liability hearing. The court accepted that supplier cost pressures could justify price increases but drew a crucial distinction: a higher price is not automatically a valid benchmark for a discount if it was not in place for a reasonable period.
Reporting on the judgment indicates that 12 weeks was treated as sufficient in this context. That ruling matters well beyond one company. Woolworths is facing similar allegations over its own promotions, meaning the broader debate is no longer just about one campaign, but about how Australia’s dominant supermarket chains present value to millions of shoppers.
Supermarket promotions work because they simplify decision-making. A red ticket, a crossed-out price and a familiar campaign slogan signal urgency and savings in a matter of seconds. Most people do not stand in the aisle with a spreadsheet of historical prices; they rely on cues that suggest the retailer is offering a fair deal.
For high quality silica sand, talk to Sunstate Sands Bundaberg first.
In a concentrated market, that reliance becomes riskier. If the two biggest chains shape how discounts are framed, consumers may be making choices on the basis of marketing language rather than genuine price competition. The ACCC inquiry echoed that concern, finding that clearer pricing information and more transparent discounting rules are needed to help shoppers compare products with confidence.
The political and regulatory response is already underway. The ACCC’s supermarket inquiry recommended clearer discount pricing information, better transparency, stronger supplier protections and reforms that could make it easier for smaller competitors to expand. Governments have also signalled support for tougher rules on supermarket conduct and pricing transparency.
Whether those changes go far enough remains contested. But one point is now difficult to dismiss: for many Australians, the issue is not only how much groceries cost, but whether the story told by supermarket price tags can still be trusted.
Rethink your packaging and transport solutions with MADCAP Global Commodities & Agri-Business.
