SYDNEY, May 15, 2026, 08:07 AEST
- Woolworths’ own discount-pricing judgment is still pending after Coles lost a related Federal Court case.
- The ACCC alleges Woolworths misled shoppers over 266 products under its “Prices Dropped” program.
- Investors are watching whether the ruling forces tighter supermarket promotion rules across Australia.
Woolworths Group Ltd enters Friday with its own discount-pricing case in sharper focus after Australia’s Federal Court found rival Coles misled shoppers over its “Down Down” promotions.
The timing matters. The same judge has reserved judgment in separate proceedings against Woolworths, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it would not comment on that matter while it remains before the court. The regulator said the Coles case concerned 245 products and that the court found misleading representations in 13 of 14 sample “Down Down” tickets considered in the liability hearing. ACCC
Woolworths’ shares lost 1.9% after the Coles decision, while Coles fell 2.7%, Reuters reported. “The court ruling is the clear trigger for today’s weakness, but the market is looking beyond the legal headline,” Vantage Markets analyst Hebe Chen said. Investors, she said, were pricing in “the risk that Coles’ discounting playbook becomes less flexible.” Reuters
The ACCC’s case against Woolworths turns on a similar question: whether shoppers were led to think they were getting genuine price cuts. In its 2024 filing, the watchdog alleged Woolworths made false or misleading representations about 266 products from September 2021 to May 2023, after short price rises were followed by “Prices Dropped” promotions at prices higher than, or the same as, earlier regular prices. ACCC
That is the legal risk. It is also a commercial one. Promotional pricing is central to how Australian supermarkets defend market share when households are stretched and rivals are matching each other on shelf prices.
But the Coles judgment is not Woolworths’ judgment. Woolworths has argued through its counsel that shoppers were not misled, that the higher prices were charged long enough to count as previous regular prices, and that supplier cost increases made older prices less relevant. Robert Yezerski SC told the court the Woolworths case was “a million miles away” from earlier cases where “was/now” advertising had been found misleading. ABC News
The case lands in a market already under political and regulatory heat. Woolworths and Coles dominate Australian grocery, while the ACCC has called for more transparency on prices, promotions and loyalty schemes; it has also recommended that ALDI, Coles and Woolworths publish pricing information and that Coles and Woolworths provide dynamic price data to third parties.
Woolworths still has sales momentum. The company said on April 30 that group third-quarter sales rose 4.5% to A$18.1 billion, with Australian Food sales up 5.9% and group e-commerce sales up 20.2%. It also said Australian Food EBIT — earnings before interest and tax, a measure of operating profit — was still expected to grow in the mid- to high-single-digit range in fiscal 2026, though no longer at the upper end of that range.
Chief Executive Amanda Bardwell said Woolworths was seeing “early signs” that conflict in the Middle East was affecting customers and staff who were already under cost-of-living pressure. The group, she said, was focused on “making every dollar count” while investing in lower prices and convenience.
Woolworths is also pushing everyday convenience. On May 13, it said it had expanded its easy-to-prepare meal range to 380 new or updated options, citing internal data that nearly half of Australian home cooks rely on five or fewer regular recipes. That is a small product move, but it fits the same fight: keep shoppers in the basket when budgets are tight.
The downside for Woolworths is not just a fine. An adverse ruling could force tighter rules around how long a product must sit at a higher price before being promoted as discounted, reducing flexibility in a core supermarket sales tool.
Consumer-law experts are watching the broader effect. Jeannie Paterson, a University of Melbourne professor, told the Guardian that evidence in the Woolworths case had exposed “the cynicism of marketing” and that many shoppers would remain “very suspicious of marketing campaigns.” The Guardian
For now, Woolworths has one advantage Coles no longer has: uncertainty. The court has not ruled on its case. That leaves investors to trade the risk, not the result.
