Did Coles mislead customers with its 'down down' campaign? | 7.30

Key Concepts

• Kohl's Down/Down Down Campaign: A promotional strategy used by Kohl's supermarket chain advertising discounted prices.
• Misleading Conduct: The central allegation – that Kohl's artificially inflated prices before applying discounts, creating a false impression of savings.
• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC): The Australian consumer watchdog pursuing legal action against Kohl's.
• Class Action Lawsuit: A legal action initiated by a group of consumers (led by Ben Demery) seeking compensation for alleged misleading pricing.
• Contract Price: The agreed-upon price between Kohl's and its suppliers, influencing retail pricing strategies.
• Inflatory Pressures: External economic factors driving up the cost of goods.

Pricing Practices Under Scrutiny: The Kohl's 'Down Down' Controversy

This report details the ongoing legal battle surrounding Kohl's supermarket chain’s ‘Down Down’ promotional campaign, alleging misleading pricing practices. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is currently pursuing a case in the Federal Court, claiming that over 200 products were not genuinely discounted during the campaign.

Allegations of Misleading Discounts

The core of the case revolves around the ACCC’s assertion that Kohl's deliberately inflated prices for a period before applying the ‘Down Down’ discount, effectively deceiving consumers into believing they were receiving a better deal. Specific examples cited include a can of dog food, initially priced at $4, being raised to $6 for seven days before being “discounted” back to $4.50 – a 13% increase compared to the price two weeks prior. The ACCC argues this practice wasn’t a mistake, but a deliberate attempt to mislead. Kohl's denies these claims, maintaining the discounts were accurate based on existing contract prices.

Legal Proceedings and Admissions

Several senior Kohl's executives have testified in court. Kohl's has admitted to making errors in discounting on two separate occasions. However, the ACCC contends that the practice of raising prices briefly before applying discounts was not isolated incidents but a systemic strategy. The court’s determination will focus on whether consumers were genuinely misled by these pricing tactics.

Consumer Impact and the Class Action

The controversy sparked widespread outrage on social media, prompting consumers to scrutinize their receipts. Ben Demery, a regular Kohl's shopper, became the lead applicant in a class action lawsuit against the supermarket. He stated, “I kind of built up a list of all these household things that I got routinely…and then on top of that regular other things…especially if they had the bright red down tag. If you see that down ticket, you just gravitate towards that and think that's the better value.” After reviewing his receipts, he discovered the perceived savings were often illusory. Demery’s goal is “clear and transparent pricing practices…I want to know when something is a discount, I'm actually going to be saving money.”

Potential Financial Ramifications

Gerard Maloof’s legal firm is leading the class action. The potential financial impact is substantial. While the ACCC could impose penalties of $100-150 million, the class action could yield significantly higher damages. Estimates suggest that if each of Kohl's 8.5 million customers lost $40-50 per month over two years, the total damages could reach close to $750 million. The outcome of the ACCC case will directly influence the class action’s ability to pursue damages. As stated by a representative from the legal firm, “We are waiting in line behind the ACCC. The class action litigants once we've established liability, we can go off and assess damages and they will get every dollar of that.”

Industry Perspectives and Potential Consequences

Professor Gary Mortimer, a retail marketing expert and former Kohl's manager, explained the complexities of pricing decisions. He highlighted that suppliers often request price increases, and negotiations may involve a trade-off: accepting a price increase in exchange for a promotional discount program. He cautioned that a ruling against Kohl's could lead to increased regulation regarding the duration a price must remain stable before being discounted. Mortimer warned that such regulation could have unintended consequences, potentially leading to higher prices overall as retailers delay discounts to avoid compliance. “If the ACCC is successful in this case, the unintended consequences 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.”

Broader Implications

The case is not isolated. A similar case involving Woolworths is scheduled to be heard in April. This suggests a broader industry scrutiny of promotional pricing practices. Kohl's maintains its position, asserting 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.” However, the perception of misleading conduct, fueled by social media and consumer complaints, remains a significant factor.

Conclusion

The Kohl's ‘Down Down’ controversy highlights the importance of transparent pricing and the potential for consumer deception in promotional campaigns. The ongoing legal proceedings and the class action lawsuit underscore the growing demand for accountability from retailers. The outcome of these cases will likely have significant implications for pricing practices across the Australian supermarket industry and potentially lead to increased regulation to protect consumers.