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
-
White Anting: serious misconduct?
White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within. White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt. White Anting has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…
-
ACCC publishes guidance on cash acceptance industry codes
From 1 January 2026, new cash acceptance obligations have commenced under industry codes applying to supermarkets and fuel retailers, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). In March 2026, the ACCC published guidance on these newly enforced regulations, reminding retailers to consider their obligations before penalties apply on 1 July 2026.
-
ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?
Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company. While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law. This article explains the key…
-
Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd
In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.
-
Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages
On 24 November 2025, Senator David Pocock introduced a private Senator’s bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (Online Safety Act) and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act).
-
Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232. These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders. While primarily…
-
Business Lawyer
Business Lawyer, commercial and contracts and advisory lawyer, 4-10 years PAE, and $ negotiable performance based, depending on experience.
-
Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards
Directors are personally liable for ensuring their company operates in accordance with corporate governance and accounting standards. Obligations contained in part 2M.2 and 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) outline obligations for companies to keep financial records and prepare annual financial and director’s reports. Sections 180 and 344 of the Corporations Act…
-
OAIC publishes new guidance for under-16s social media ban
On 10 October 2025, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), led by Privacy Commissioner, Ms Carly Kind, released a twenty-nine (29) page Privacy Guidance on Part 4A (Social Media Minimum Age) of the Online Safety Act 2021 (New Guidance). This New Guidance details the privacy obligations for Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms (Restricted Platforms)…
