Listen to the HotCopper podcast for in-depth discussions and insights on all the biggest headlines from throughout the week. On Spotify, Apple, and more.

Both can significantly influence the experience of shoppers on one end and the economic viability and practices of producers on the other.

The first of these has been a headline issue in the last two years, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) taking the supermarket giants to court in September 2024, accusing them of misleading marketing via Woolworths’ “Prices Dropped” and Coles’ “Down Down” campaigns.

However, in a follow-up enquiry completed in February 2025, the regulator expanded its concerns into the relationship between producers (including agricultural and horticulture growers) and the supermarkets they do business with, finding the dominance of ‘Colesworth’ is equally problematic there.

In its ‘Supermarkets Inquiry’, the ACCC confirmed the significant market share held by Woolworths and Coles, acknowledging they accounted for 38% and 29% of supermarket grocery sales in Australia.

In third place was ALDI at 9%, while wholesaler Metcash – which supplies independent supermarkets – came up last at 7% in the supermarket rankings.

This formation plays an important role in shaping the national product pricing environment, with the regulator stating that “Coles and Woolworths have limited incentive to compete vigorously with each other on price.”

It added that while ALDI offered a viable low-cost alternative for shoppers – and could therefore act as a “source of price constraint” on the two giants, especially when there was product overlap across all three, it did not compete with them head-to-head across the whole range of products.

More market news

Levy beef: Trump whacks Oz with 10% tariffs on “Liberation Day”

Meet GeoGeorge: The HotCopper poster so accurate he got hired as an analyst

Independent grocery stores – represented by Metcash – often played an important role in servicing local needs, particularly in areas outside Australia’s urban centres, where Woolworths, Coles, and ALDI aren’t always present.

(The ACCC also noted independent stores had been losing market share over time.)

Crucially, the inquiry confirmed the market structure of Australia’s supermarket sector which it described as “oligopolistic” – was unlikely to change soon.

When it comes to the supply chain for fresh produce in Australia, supermarkets – particularly the two majors – are influential players, and this is particularly enhanced when it comes to the horticulture sector.

Woolworths has been buying up between 20% and 25% of the country’s fruit and vegetable supply (excluding processing), while Coles procured approximately 15%.

The ACCC has acknowledged that due to this framework, business arrangements negotiated between supermarkets and growers influenced the production cycle, the pricing of goods, and also the viability of some growers’ and producers’ businesses.

To find out more, the regulator held a series of roundtables with farmers and wholesalers across Australia to gain insight into how farmers and wholesalers perceive this relationship and to hear about their experiences within the supermarket supply chain.

What they found was many suppliers were reluctant to raise concerns about the trading relationship due to fear of retribution; they feared the latter companies being able to practice ‘monopsony’ power in these relationships.

This refers to a situation in which a company can affect the overall market price of a product through its control of a significant chunk of upstream purchases. It can take the form of a price reduction (when the company buys less of it), or even a price increase (when the company purchases more).

The inquiry found many producers felt they had “little choice but to agree to highly unfavourable terms, including lower prices than they would expect if Coles and Woolworths faced greater competition from other buyers,” in addition to feeling under pressure to use ancillary services (such as freight or marketing) that came from the supermarkets in question, even if these were perceived to offer substandard services.

Also highlighted was the problem of information asymmetries which were sometimes taken advantage of by Coles and Woolworths: Resulting in suppliers themselves being unable to make the best business decisions for themselves.

The ACCC concluded protections offered under existing regulatory codes – such as the Food and Grocery Code – should be strengthened to support suppliers.

The unequal relationship between farmers and supermarket buyers may also have a detrimental effect on the former’s capacity to adopt sustainable practices that benefit Australia’s food system overall, according to the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).

ACF corporate campaigner Bonnie Graham said several of the concerns raised by the ACCC’s inquiry reflected wider problems of sustainable food production and protection of the environment.

“The competition regulator has highlighted how the supermarket giants’ market dominance means farmers are less able to make informed decisions about how to invest in their businesses,” she explained to HotCopper.

“When Aussie producers don’t have the confidence to invest in their farms, this negatively affects the long-term viability and sustainability of Australia’s food system.

“Many farmers want to adopt nature and climate-friendly production methods to future-proof their businesses and Australia’s food security: the major supermarkets should support their suppliers in making these changes that benefit all of us.”

Ms Graham said adjacent issues connecting food production and environmental sustainability had been raised in the ACF’s Future of Food report, released in July 2024, which assessed 20 major food companies in Australia on how they measured up to 37 indicators of sustainable practice.

A crucial issue for the companies – which included Coles and Woolworths, McDonald’s, Hungry Jacks, Aldi, Bega, and Sanitarium – was their inability to track commodities back to the farm level, with only nine of 20 being able to.

“Food supply chains are incredibly complex, with most food companies purchasing ingredients from middle suppliers, not from the farmers themselves,” Ms Graham said.

“There are often several suppliers and processors between the farm gate and the factory, making it harder for food companies to trace their ingredients back to farm level.”

This made it extremely hard to know how the associated supply chains might be impacting nature, according to the report.

The Future of Food also emphasised the importance of companies following international best practices in setting deforestation targets connected to their production, with some, like ALDI, already ahead on this issue.

“ALDI is a multinational company with headquarters in the EU, and the EU has stronger laws on deforestation and supply chain sustainability than Australia,” Ms Graham said.

“This is most likely the biggest factor in Aldi becoming the first Australian supermarket to adopt a deforestation-free policy.

“Since the Future of Food report was published, Woolworths has also set a deforestation-free target for its products by the end of 2025. Woolworths’ commitment includes beef, which is the biggest driver of deforestation in Australia.”

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

Listen to the HotCopper podcast for in-depth discussions and insights on all the biggest headlines from throughout the week. On Spotify, Apple, and more.

This included providing customers with lower prices and “deeper” promotions, simplified promotional programs, clearer specials explanations, and greater accessibility to pricing info through the supermarket’s site and app.

Woolworths also confirmed it was following the ACCC’s recommendation in publishing all product prices online.

“We have worked constructively with the ACCC to help it understand our business, the sectors in which we operate, our suppliers and supply chains, and the considerable competition we face,” Amanda Bardwell, Woolies’ CEO, said.

“We play an important role in the lives of millions of Australians, more than 200,000 teammembers, and our suppliers.

“We have taken steps to improve the experiences customers and suppliers have with us, andcontinue to listen carefully to all of them.

“We fully understand customers want us to make it easier to find value, especially as the cost of living remains their major concern.”

In September 2024, the national regulator took both Woolworths and its close competitor Coles to court over claims their respective staple “Prices Dropped” and “Down Down” campaigns had been misleading.

The ACCC claimed some products were sold at regular long-term prices – excluding short-term specials, sometimes for up to a year – before being increased by 15%.

Then, these same products would be included in Woolworths’ “Prices Dropped” and Coles’ “Down Down” promotions, the ACCC said, with new prices less than the previous spike but still higher than the regular long-term price.

The ACCC review that followed – and which Woolies responded to today – aimed at encouraging greater transparency in pricing among Oz supermarkets.

More market news

51st State: What is Trump’s endgame with tariffs – and what will it mean for Canada?

Meet GeoGeorge: The HotCopper poster so accurate he got hired as an analyst

In its findings reported today, the ACCC noted “ALDI, Coles, and Woolworths are some of the most profitable supermarket businesses among global peers and their average product margins have increased over the past five financial years.”

Woolworths has been higher after the news and at 10:59am the supermarket was trading at $29.68 – a rise of 5.44% since the market opened.

Join the discussion: See what HotCopper users are saying about Woolworths Group and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

The watchdog has now launched legal action in the Federal Court, with the action revolving around “false” flight prices between November 2018 and November 2023.

Of particular interest in the case will be statements billed on Webjet’s app as well as in marketing emails, social media campaigns, and on its website.

Phrases like “flights from $X” had appeared throughout these communication avenues, the watchdog flagged, but allegedly never included Webjet’s compulsory service and booking fees that sometime cost as much as $54.90 all up.

When fees were mentioned, they were often difficult to find, the ACCC claims.

Other alleged breaches include claims Webjet sent customers emails confirming flights that hadn’t actually been booked – then requesting further payments to lock them in.

ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb pointed out all this had happened as living costs mounted.

“We remind all businesses, whether they are online retailers or brick and mortar stores, that they need to comply with the Australian Consumer Law by not misleading consumers and displaying prices clearly, including hidden fees and surcharges,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb added upon sharing the ACCC’s planned legal action.

Webjet responded to the lawsuit nearly immediately with a statement on the ASX, where it suggested it had already taken steps to improve pricing and fee disclosures.

“Millions have chosen to book through Webjet Marketing during the period in question and we have very rarely been contacted by customers complaining about our disclosure of fees,” the company wrote on Thursday. “Webjet is confident there is no widespread customer dissatisfaction with our offering, disclosure, service, or pricing.”

This finance journalist actually got an email from Webjet’s marketing arm at 11.32am today billing its $100-cheaper Asia package. In that email, Webjet listed several service and booking fees, but expected “payment fees” were trimmed by the email format.

(This accidental trim in the Gmail view is likely to be just that, of course – accidental.)

Should the ACCC proved its claims in the Federal Court, it will be seeking fines against Webjet as well as compensation for any impacted customers –

This ACCC action will cause some whiplash among Webjet investors, many of whom would have just been celebrating a 14% spike in share prices yesterday.

Webjet – which demerged from Web Travel Group last year – had reported better than expected underlying profits to the tune of $9.2 million.

That success, and a $150M share buyback plan, had sent share prices rocketing.

Today though, Webjet is down 4.14% to 81cps.

Join the discussion. See what HotCopper users are saying about Webjet Group and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

The proceedings are to be heard at the Federal Court, where the ACCC will allege that Coles and Woolworths breached Australian Consumer Law by making discount pricing claims which misled consumers in relation to hundreds of common supermarket products.

Specifically, the regulator is focusing on a range of products which it believes were sold at regular long terms prices, excluding short-term specials, for at least six month and often up to a year, despite the advertised claims.

After this – the ACCC alleges – the same products were increased by at least 15% before being included in Woolworths’ ‘Prices Dropped’ promotion and Coles’ ‘Down Down’ promotion, with prices lower than the previous spike, but with prices that were higher than or equal to the regular long-term price.

ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said the marketing campaigns had led Australians to form an inaccurate opinion of the pricing of these products.

“Following many years of marketing campaigns by Woolworths and Coles, Australianconsumers have come to understand that the ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ promotions relate to a sustained reduction in the regular prices of supermarket products,” she said.

“However, in the case of these products, we allege the new ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ promotional prices were actually higher than, or the same as, the previous regular price.

“We allege that each of Woolworths and Coles breached the Australian Consumer Law bymaking misleading claims about discounts, when the discounts were, in fact, illusory.”

She added that in many cases, the two companies had already decided to add these products to the campaigns before the price spike, but implemented the latter specifically to establish a higher ‘was’ price.

At 11:46 AEST, Coles shares were trading at $18.60 – a fall of 3.23% since the market opened, and Woolworths was trading at $33.87 – a fall of 3.17%.

Lendlease Group Ltd (ASX:LLC) runs 16 residential masterplanned community projects in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, with 12 of these set to be acquired by Stockland and Supalai as part of a joint venture, the Stockland Supalai Residential Communities Partnership Pty Ltd (SSRCP).

But the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has raised preliminary concerns about the impact this could have on four specific areas: Illawarra, North West Perth, Ipswitch and Moreton Bay, with Commissioner Liza Carver suggesting the acquisition removed one of Stockland’s closest competitors for supply of such projects.

“The ACCC is concerned that the proposed acquisition may increase Stockland’s incentiveto raise the price, delay the supply, or reduce the quality of housing lots in these regions, tothe detriment of prospective homeowners,” Ms Carver said.

She added that given the tightness of competition between Stockland and Lendlease already, the buying up of these projects would make it even more difficult for developers to meet expectations, based on current market feedback.

“We are concerned that other developers of masterplanned community projects may not beable to compete sufficiently with Stockland after the acquisition in some regions,” Ms Carversaid.

“These preliminary concerns are strongest in the Illawarra region of New South Wales wherethe proposed acquisition would bring together the two largest masterplanned communityprojects in an already highly concentrated market.”

Additionally, the ACCC is looking into the possibility that the proposed deal between Stockland and Supalai might increase the risk of anti-competitive coordination by developers connected to the pricing, supply, and/or quality of masterplanned community projects.

However, the Commission stressed that these concerns are only at a preliminary stage, and invited submissions in response to these by 18 July 2024.

Stockland announced in December 2023 that it had entered a joint venture with Supalai – a subsidiary of Supalai Public Company Limited – to acquire the 12 residential projects for approximately $1.3 billion, with the deal comprising 27,600 lots across the four states.

Leandlease has been trading at $5.72.