Carrington Clarke

They believe that there should be a big punishment for this behavior to send a clear message.

Does it have to be so big that it requires an intake of breath, do you think, for it to make a difference?

Or do you think the reputational damage with a smaller fine will be enough?

to change behaviour?

So we now do have a response from Coles to the judgment.

On one hand, they say that the court has found that the price increases resulted from supplier cost price increases and were therefore commercially justifiable.

But they also interestingly do say this case highlights the importance of clarity for both retailers and customers alike.

alike and the need for clear practical guidance on minimum price establishment periods to ensure the retail industry can avoid unnecessary litigation in the future.

we are in the process of reviewing.

We don't want to go to court again, is the Coles statement.

I mean, it is an interesting question though, right?

Are we going to go down the path where there is a clear guideline from the ACCC saying, if you have a similar situation, the price has to be at 12 weeks using this as the benchmark, and that is it.

Everyone has to play by the same rules.

Is that what consumers want?

Or do you want a softer touch, which is, well, they have to be real discounts and then come up with your own internal guardrails of what that looks like.

Given how high profile these cases have been, maybe we are going to go down a pathway where it is much more clearly defined what you are able to do when it comes to pricing.

And obviously, those people who believe in letting markets decide these things allow the free market to rip or allow individual companies to make that decision later.

when they're thinking about what relationship they want with their customers.

Is that a better outcome?

That's to be debated.