Update to our article published on 23 July 2014
See further update published 14 April 2015
On 29 September 2014, Chief Justice Allsop of the Federal Court handed down his judgment in the Coles “Fresh Bread” case.
This decision highlights the potential perils of “pushing the boundaries” when it comes to advertising products for sale in a way that could be construed as misleading or deceptive within the meaning of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) which is contained within Schedule 2 the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Coles has been restrained for a period of 3 years from making any representations on any packaging that its bread was made or baked on the same day it was sold or baked from fresh dough when that is not the case.
Coles has also been ordered to display a corrective notice in a prominent location on counters in Coles Bakery Stores and through a prominent “one-click link” displayed in the top one-third of its homepage.
The Court made various declarations including that in marketing various bread products as “Freshly Baked In-Store” and “Baked Today, Sold Today”, Coles:
- engaged in conduct in trade or commerce that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 18 of the ACL
- made a representation in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply or promotion of the supply of goods that was false or misleading as to the history of the goods in contravention of section 29(1)(a) of the ACL; and
- engaged in conduct in trade or commerce that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, and the characteristics of goods in contravention of section 33 of the ACL.
A copy of his Honour’s reasons for judgment and a copy of the corrective notice can be viewed here: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 1022.
Further information
If you need further information about the potential of making misleading and deceptive statements in advertising, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstance.
Related insights on competition and commercial law
-
What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change. The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC. This article will briefly explain the function of…
-
WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context
The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…
-
Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?
In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing. This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…
-
Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim
The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…
-
Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview
Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …
-
Coercive control and shareholder oppression
The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code). This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…
-
Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026
On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1] If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027. The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…
-
Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?
Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.
-
White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide
Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed. Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…
