Sydney, April 27, 2026, 05:13 AEST
The dispute between Woolworths Group Ltd and the Australian competition watchdog over the supermarket’s “Prices Dropped” campaign spilled further into public view late Friday, as the Federal Court released an expanded trove of evidence and filings. The case file, listed as Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths Group Limited, saw updates at 5:12 p.m. on April 24, now featuring affidavits, court orders, and other submitted documents. Federal Court of Australia
This case has taken on fresh significance, with discount pricing now a flashpoint in Australia’s grocery crunch. The dispute zeroes in on “was/is” pricing—retailers pitching current deals against former “was” prices—right as Woolworths and Coles Group Ltd are feeling the heat from consumers, regulators, and lawmakers over rising food costs. Together, the two giants account for roughly two-thirds of the country’s grocery market, according to Reuters. Reuters
The ACCC claims Woolworths misled customers on 266 items from September 2021 to May 2023, raising shelf prices briefly before promoting “Prices Dropped” deals that were, in many cases, equal to or higher than previous regular prices. Shoppers count on discounts “to help their grocery budgets stretch further,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. ACCC
The ACCC, in its opening submissions to the court, took a somewhat narrower view of the dispute: 276 promotions, spread over 266 products. According to filings, these items had previously been sold at an initial price for at least 180 days. Prices then jumped at least 15%, staying there for no longer than 45 days, before being touted as “dropped” from the new, higher mark. Federal Court of Australia
Woolworths is pushing back against the regulator’s claims. In its submissions, the retailer pointed out the ACCC hasn’t alleged any inaccuracies on the price tickets in question, arguing the signage just showed that the current price was below the previous one — which, Woolworths maintains, was accurate.
Woolworths execs are facing questions about how they set prices. Paul Harker, the company’s chief commercial officer, testified that as inflation picked up, the program’s rules shifted. Earlier rules, he explained, were designed to prevent suppliers from flipping products in and out of promotions for no good commercial reason: “you couldn’t game the system.” The Guardian
The legal dispute hits as Woolworths works to regain its footing. Back in February, the retailer reported a 16% jump in first-half underlying net profit, reaching A$859 million. Price reductions and improved sales in Australian Food played a role. “Customers want value but they also want reliable value,” Chief Executive Amanda Bardwell noted to analysts. Reuters
Woolworths is still pushing its value pitch beyond the court. On Friday, its MILKRUN delivery arm announced it would hand out 20,000 free grocery items between April 29 and May 2—5,000 up for grabs each day starting at 4 p.m. AEST, no minimum spend, while supplies last.
Coles serves as the immediate rival in focus. The ACCC has also taken action against Coles, targeting its “Down Down” campaigns and claiming 245 products were involved. Still, the watchdog makes clear it isn’t suggesting any collusion between the two chains. ACCC
No fresh trading session has given investors a chance to react to the latest court-file update. As of 4:32 p.m. AEST on April 24, Woolworths’ investor page showed WOW shares steady at A$37.89, no percentage move displayed.
But the result could swing either way. Woolworths faces the possibility that the court sides with the ACCC, agreeing that customers interpreted “Prices Dropped” as a real markdown from the usual price. On the other hand, the regulator runs the risk that the judge goes with Woolworths’ tighter interpretation—that rushed grocery shoppers just focus on whether the price is lower than it was right before the promotion started.
This court battle centers on liability, not on the regulation of supermarket prices. Should the ACCC prevail, penalties and any additional orders would remain at the court’s discretion. Still, the outcome might prompt stricter wording on grocery discount signage—just as shoppers are already scrutinizing shelf prices.
