>Former chairman Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
>If the allegations of dishonesty and illegality against Coles and Woolworths are accepted by the Federal Court, the effects on the supermarkets – and on public policy – will be large.
>They include general reputation damage, huge fines and questions about who in the business knew what about the illegal practices and when.
>The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleges Coles and Woolworths temporarily increased the prices of 245 and 266 products respectively for short periods, before placing them on “Down Down” and “Prices Dropped” promotions.
>But what is particularly galling about the scandal is the products for which prices were allegedly manipulated include many staples of ordinary and low-income families – Tim Tams, Kellogg’s and Weet-Bix cereals, Moccona coffee, Sprite soft drink, Bega cheese, Colgate toothpaste, Maggi noodles, Sakata rice crackers, Whiskas cat food and more.
>These are not luxury items favoured by wealthier shoppers. Those being allegedly conned and exploited were families struggling at the height of the cost-of-living crisis.
>The systematic nature of the manipulation, its duration, and the fact that a significant number of ordinary consumers were able to establish its existence raises important questions about Coles and Woolworths management and directors.
>If ordinary consumers could readily establish this behaviour occurred, what about senior management and the board? If consumers knew, didn’t they? Was a blind eye turned?
>Shoppers have long suspected that this gouging has been going on – now there seems to be credible evidence. Indeed, if this was occurring on that scale and in such a systematic manner, it has perhaps gone on for much longer. To that extent, these allegations are even more serious.
>Were there rigorous compliance programs operating in these businesses? If there were, they would surely have known the standard point made in elementary consumer law texts and compliance programs that false discounting of this kind is illegal.
>If they are found guilty, the fines are likely to be big – in the hundreds of millions of dollars due to [recent changes in the law](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p5jnz8). Doubtless the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which is running the case, will argue in court that the big retailers, assuming they knew what was going on, regarded the behaviour, if detected, as a cost of business to be weighed against the potential substantial profits it would generate.
1 Comment
>September 25, 2024 — 5.00am
>[Allan Fels](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/by/allan-fels-p4yw98)
>Former chairman Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
>If the allegations of dishonesty and illegality against Coles and Woolworths are accepted by the Federal Court, the effects on the supermarkets – and on public policy – will be large.
>They include general reputation damage, huge fines and questions about who in the business knew what about the illegal practices and when.
>The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleges Coles and Woolworths temporarily increased the prices of 245 and 266 products respectively for short periods, before placing them on “Down Down” and “Prices Dropped” promotions.
>But what is particularly galling about the scandal is the products for which prices were allegedly manipulated include many staples of ordinary and low-income families – Tim Tams, Kellogg’s and Weet-Bix cereals, Moccona coffee, Sprite soft drink, Bega cheese, Colgate toothpaste, Maggi noodles, Sakata rice crackers, Whiskas cat food and more.
>These are not luxury items favoured by wealthier shoppers. Those being allegedly conned and exploited were families struggling at the height of the cost-of-living crisis.
>The systematic nature of the manipulation, its duration, and the fact that a significant number of ordinary consumers were able to establish its existence raises important questions about Coles and Woolworths management and directors.
>If ordinary consumers could readily establish this behaviour occurred, what about senior management and the board? If consumers knew, didn’t they? Was a blind eye turned?
>Shoppers have long suspected that this gouging has been going on – now there seems to be credible evidence. Indeed, if this was occurring on that scale and in such a systematic manner, it has perhaps gone on for much longer. To that extent, these allegations are even more serious.
>Were there rigorous compliance programs operating in these businesses? If there were, they would surely have known the standard point made in elementary consumer law texts and compliance programs that false discounting of this kind is illegal.
>If they are found guilty, the fines are likely to be big – in the hundreds of millions of dollars due to [recent changes in the law](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p5jnz8). Doubtless the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which is running the case, will argue in court that the big retailers, assuming they knew what was going on, regarded the behaviour, if detected, as a cost of business to be weighed against the potential substantial profits it would generate.