n a price goes “Down Down”, has it actually gone down? The regulator alleges that during the “Relevant Period”, Coles temporarily increased the prices of 245 different products before placing those products on Down Down promotions at prices which were higher than or the same as the regular price previously charged. It stated the pattern was consistent with a long-running regular price (median 343 days), a short spike (median 28 days), then a promoted “Down Down” price. In one example, Rexona deodorant sold at $5 for 409 days, rose to $6.50 for 30 days, then went on “Down Down” at $6, still 20 per cent higher than the earlier price. The legal question is not whether those prices existed, but whether the conduct was “misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive” under the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC argues a reasonable shopper would understand the comparison to be with the previous regular price, not a short-lived spike. Coles disagrees, describing Down Down as a “promotional program” discounting from the prior “white ticket” price. It says the tickets simply show “the current price… a ‘was’ price… and the words Down Down” and warns the ACCC’s alternative test rests on a “chronically wide area of penumbral doubt”. What is a “discount” in 2026? The courtroom debate is mirrored on social feeds, according to ABC’s 7:30. “Don’t be fooled,” one shopper posted. “These aren’t half price.” Another quipped: “Special $7.30, normal price $7.” The ACCC says more than 200 products were promoted under Down Down when they were not discounted at all. In one dog food example cited on the segment, a $4 product rose to $6 for seven days, then was promoted at $4.50. During the episode, retail academic Professor Gary Mortimer offered a cooler lens. “Essentially, the court will determine whether or not consumers were misled in these discounts,” he said. He added that none of the supermarkets are being provided with clear guidelines on how long a product needs to stay in place before it can be discounted. That absence of prescription is the grey zone, and the question shift; are supermarkets exploiting ambiguity or operating within it? Mortimer’s position is nuanced. “My position is that I don’t believe consumers were misled or deceived,” he told 7:30. “I think that the permanent prices were accurate. There was a contract price in place at the time of the discount. So, the discount was also accurate as well.” He cautioned that perception may be shaped “mostly… on what people are reading on social media posts or potentially headlines.” Behind the ticket, he notes, sit supplier negotiations and cost pressures invisible to shoppers. Will stricter discount rules push prices higher? The unintended consequences loom. If the ACCC succeeds and clearer baseline rules are imposed, Mortimer warned, the unintended consequences are that customers may be worse off. Prices that “naturally inflate because of inflationary pressures” will stay higher for a longer period of time until they’re able to be discounted. In other words, fewer red tickets, less theatrics and a result of potentially higher averages. It’s no doubt Coles and Woolworths collectively command the centre of Australia’s supermarket landscape, setting the cadence of pricing, promotion and supplier negotiation across the country. When conduct within that duopoly is tested in court, it rarely remains confined to a single campaign or ticket. It becomes a referendum on how value is signalled and how transparent the mechanics of discounting are when two dominant retailers shape the everyday economics of the nation’s shopping baskets. Beyond liability lie penalties and parallel proceedings, a class action is queued behind the ACCC. “Win lose or draw,” class action lawyer Gerard Malouf said, “the major chains have now already started changing the way they market.” He estimates potential consumer loss at scale could approach three-quarters of a billion dollars. If a discount is compared to the last white ticket, Coles may prevail.  For now, the case continues, and another similar matter involving Woolworths is expected in April. In the aisles, the signs remain red. However, in court, they are under review.