Retail News CRM

Tag: ACCC

  • Australian Food Inflation Hits 3.2 per Cent as Grocery Categories Diverge

    Australian Food Inflation Hits 3.2 per Cent as Grocery Categories Diverge

    Australian food and non-alcoholic beverage prices climbed 3.2 per cent in the year to September, accelerating from 3 per cent in August as grocery price movements split sharply across individual categories.

    Official figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that while overall grocery inflation has eased from its peak of 9.2 per cent in late 2022, category-level volatility is dictating basket costs for supermarket operators and hospitality venues.

    Fresh Produce Leads Supermarket Price Divides

    The headline pace hides wide gaps on the shelves. Fruit prices jumped 10.2 per cent over the 12 months to September, and beef and veal rose 5.8 per cent. Milk prices climbed 5.4 per cent over the same period, while dining out and takeaway food recorded a 3.9 per cent increase. By contrast, pork prices declined, giving retail buyers brief relief in an otherwise climbing protein basket.

    RaboResearch senior food analyst Michael Harvey pointed out that price shifts are no longer running evenly through the aisles. “Rather than broadbased inflation across the supermarket basket, we’re now seeing much greater divergence between categories,” Harvey said.

    Distributors Warn of Seven Per Cent Wholesale Jump

    Cost pressures upstream threaten to erase recent stability for commercial kitchens and supermarket suppliers. Countrywide Foodservice Distributors, an industry group representing almost 100 distributors that serve 80,000 businesses and institutions across Australia, warned that domestic operators can no longer absorb rising operational overheads.

    The group projects an average increase of 7 per cent across food and beverage lines. Mounting freight outlays, higher fuel expenses and a global squeeze on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser linked to conflict in the Middle East are lifting farmgate input costs. Because natural gas and Gulf shipping routes dictate global fertiliser pricing, Australian growers are paying more to establish upcoming crops, which distributors expect to pass straight through to wholesale pricing schedules.

    Margin Squeeze Shifts to Private Label and Sourcing

    For supermarket chains and foodservice groups across the region, widening price gaps between categories destroy predictable margin structures. When basic produce like fruit spikes at double-digit rates, consumers trade down to discount private-label alternatives, purchase processed shelf-stable substitutes or trim basket sizes altogether.

    Retailers operating in Australia cannot lean on uniform across-the-board supplier price increases without alienating shoppers whose overall household budgets remain pinched. Margin defense now rests on selective category renegotiations: buying desks must swallow higher fruit and dairy inputs while exploiting cheaper pork supplies and flat packaging lines to keep basket totals manageable.

    Long Tail of Earlier Price Increases

    The current divergence follows five years of compounding retail food price escalation. An inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission documented a 23 per cent surge in food and non-alcoholic beverage prices between March 2019 and June 2024. Although the annual rate of increase has downshifted from the 9.2 per cent recorded in the December quarter of 2022, the price baseline remains permanently elevated.

    The immediate indicator to track is the upcoming Australian Bureau of Statistics consumer price index release for the December quarter, which will confirm whether distributor-projected 7 per cent wholesale increases have begun flowing into supermarket checkouts.

  • Cotton on Pays $19,800 Penalty over Late Safety Incident Filings

    Cotton on Pays $19,800 Penalty over Late Safety Incident Filings

    Cotton On Australia has paid $19,800 in penalties after failing to report customer injuries linked to products sold by its subsidiaries within the mandatory two-day deadline.

    This week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission penalised the retail group following reporting delays on incidents tied to its Supré and Typo brands. The regulator issued two infringement notices over the late filings.

    Under the Australian Consumer Law, suppliers must notify authorities within 48 hours of learning that a product may have caused death or serious injury. Cotton On missed that cut-off on both counts before submitting the paperwork. Company risk assessments and safety tests later confirmed neither product had a defect or safety hazard.

    The Two-Day Rule and Regulatory Scrutiny

    Regulators penalised the administrative failure rather than product performance. The statutory deadline exists to prevent companies from withholding incident logs while conducting their own internal reviews.

    “While the ACCC has not identified any safety concerns about the products, Cotton On’s alleged reporting failures delayed important product-safety information reaching us,” said ACCC commissioner Luke Woodward.

    The watchdog treats mandatory reporting protocols as an early warning tripwire rather than a post-investigation formality. Waiting to verify technical fault before notifying authorities breaches the statutory threshold.

    What It Means for Regional Retail Operations

    For large apparel and lifestyle chains operating across the region, product reporting compliance has become a direct operational risk. Cotton On operates under brands including Cotton On, Cotton On Kids, Cotton On Body, Factorie, Rubi, Supré, Typo and Ceres Life. A multi-brand structure multiplies customer contact points, meaning customer service desks often receive injury reports before technical compliance teams know an incident occurred.

    Retailers operating multi-concept store networks face stricter scrutiny across their quality assurance pipelines. Fast fashion and gift retailing carry rapid inventory turnarounds and volatile sourcing cycles, leaving very little margin for slow internal escalations. Regulators in Australia and neighboring Asian markets increasingly examine digital intake systems to ensure that frontline customer service interactions immediately flag safety complaints to compliance executives.

    Earlier Scrutiny and Corporate History

    The penalty is not the first time the group has faced regulatory enforcement over merchandise standards. In December 2012, the Federal Court ordered Cotton On Kids Pty Ltd to pay $1 million in penalties following an ACCC prosecution over children’s nightdresses and pyjamas that failed mandatory fire safety labelling standards.

    Enforcement has also widened across competing retail chains in the domestic market. The ACCC took Kmart Australia to court in October 2026 over separate product safety allegations, focusing on cosmetic nail glue packaging and button battery compliance standards.

    Three Years of Consumer Complaint Audits

    Cotton On, owned by parent entity COGI Pty Ltd, cooperated with regulators to overhaul its safety notification workflows following the notices. The retailer agreed to run regular audits of all customer complaints that record an injury or illness for the next three years to verify ongoing compliance with mandatory reporting laws.

  • H&M Fined $138,600 over Children’s Fire Hazard Labels in Australia

    H&M Fined $138,600 over Children’s Fire Hazard Labels in Australia

    H&M Australia has paid $138,600 in penalties after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued seven infringement notices for alleged breaches of the Consumer Law.

    The regulator cited the retailer for supplying 4,473 items across four types of children’s nightwear that failed mandatory fire safety requirements. Under Australian standards, children’s nightwear must display explicit hazard ratings of either ‘high fire danger’ or ‘low fire danger’, dictated by fabric makeup and rigorous flammability testing.

    The enforcement action follows voluntary recall notices that H&M Australia issued for the non-compliant lines in July 2024, April 2025 and June 2025.

    Inspection Failures and Label Deficiencies

    Some garments reached store shelves with no warning tag at all. Other items carried labels with inaccurate warning wording or displayed the tags in unauthorised positions, obscuring critical hazard information from shoppers.

    H&M admitted to the conduct following the enforcement action. The retailer has committed to funding a public awareness campaign explaining fire hazard labels on children’s clothing, advertising its recall notices further, and overhauling internal compliance checks via a formal safety compliance program.

    “Without the correct labelling, parents or carers may have been unaware of the severity of the risk to children wearing these garments and being close to heat or flame. This creates an unacceptable risk of serious injuries to children,” said ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe.

    Operational Exposure Across Fast-Fashion Supply Chains

    For international apparel groups operating in Asia-Pacific, the penalty exposes the operational vulnerability of global inventory pipelines entering strictly regulated domestic jurisdictions. Global fashion networks depend on centralized sourcing hubs across Asia, but local safety rules do not tolerate harmonized, one-size-fits-all factory tagging.

    When fast-fashion retailers push thousands of seasonal units through distribution hubs into regional retail networks, manual inspection lapses trigger immediate statutory liability. The fine itself is modest for an international brand, but mandatory corrective advertising and safety audits disrupt merchandising cadence and draw sharp regulatory scrutiny.

    Stricter Regulatory Enforcement in Australia

    The enforcement follows three separate voluntary recall rounds executed by H&M Australia in July 2024, April 2025 and June 2025. Those recalls pulled the four affected nightwear lines from stores after internal audits and regulatory queries identified the missing and misplaced warning tags.

    Australian watchdogs have systematically targeted children’s sleepwear over the past two years. Davie Clothing, the firm behind loungewear label The Oodie, paid $101,280 in 2024 after failing to attach mandatory high fire danger warning labels to its children’s products.

    Attention now shifts to H&M’s rollout of its court-enforceable compliance program and the public launch of its mandatory safety awareness campaign across Australian retail channels.

  • DigiDirect Fined $99,000 over Misleading Online Discounts

    DigiDirect Fined $99,000 over Misleading Online Discounts

    Electronics retailer Digital Imaging Express, trading as DigiDirect, has paid a $99,000 fine after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigated misleading online advertising.

    The retailer agreed to a three-year undertaking under ACCC oversight after promoting fake strikethrough discounts across products that were never sold at higher rates.

    How the Strikethrough Pricing Worked

    Investigators found listings claiming slashed prices for items that never existed on the site at those baseline figures. In one case, a mini wireless keyboard appeared for $149 beside a strikethrough price of $229. DigiDirect had never charged that higher amount.

    The watchdog determined the practice breached Australian Consumer Law through false savings claims. Digital Imaging Express then signed a section 87B court-enforceable undertaking. The agreement places the retailer under regulatory oversight for three years.

    DigiDirect’s advertising may have misled consumers into thinking they were getting a genuine discount when in reality the products were rarely advertised and almost never sold at the higher strikethrough price, and the suggested discount was illusory.

    Conditions of the Regulatory Settlement

    Beyond the $99,000 fine, the settlement forces DigiDirect to pull the listings immediately. It must also publish a corrective notice to shoppers on its website.

    ACCC deputy chair Mick Keogh said deceptive discounts distort consumer behaviour and stop shoppers from comparing prices across competitors. Buyers assume they found a bargain and stop checking elsewhere.

    Enforcement Pressure Across Digital Retail

    Online operators across the region face strict auditing over promotional pricing. E-commerce platforms rely heavily on strikethrough deals. However, automated systems that invent artificial baselines carry legal exposure under consumer protection laws.

    Marketplace sellers now face scrutiny over automated sale banners. Internal compliance teams must prove reference prices reflect actual sales history rather than supplier lists or inflated baselines.

    Consolidation and Revenue Goals

    Enforcement comes as DigiDirect pushes into wider consumer goods categories. The retailer operates an omnichannel model across its digital store and seven physical shops.

    Its parent group is chasing $500 million in annual retail revenue. That portfolio includes DigiDirect, Mwave, and recently acquired book assets Booktopia, Angus & Robertson, and James Bennett.

  • Woolworths and Coles Control 67% of Supermarket Sales, ACCC Finds

    Woolworths and Coles Control 67% of Supermarket Sales, ACCC Finds

    Independent grocery operators across Australia are capturing cross-shopping trade from Woolworths and Coles as the two dominant chains control around 67 per cent of national supermarket retail sales.

    Findings from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2024-25 Supermarkets Inquiry reveal that nearly 70 per cent of consumers visit two or three grocery stores in a typical week to save money or seek out different products. The watchdog concluded that the two major supermarket groups offer largely undifferentiated ranges, pricing and promotions across their store networks.

    Scale Across Independent Networks

    Alternative grocery models in Australia are expanding by differentiating their assortments rather than competing purely on nationwide standardisation. The IGA banner now spans more than 1,200 independently owned supermarkets, operating under family ownership structures such as the three-generation Xyrakis family store in Canberra and the D’Anna family’s Boccaccio IGA in Balwyn.

    Regional fresh food specialist Harris Farm has expanded to 33 stores across New South Wales and Queensland since starting in Villawood in 1971. The family-owned grocer rolled out a delivery partnership with Amazon this year, distributing fresh produce on same-day and next-day delivery schedules across Sydney, Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Canberra and Newcastle.

    Operational Focus Over Duopoly Formats

    For suppliers and property owners across Asia-Pacific retail corridors, the Australian grocery structure demonstrates that high market concentration creates clear openings for agile specialty chains. Large grocers operating rigid supply contracts struggle to curate hyper-local merchandise, leaving regional producers to build volume through independent distribution channels.

    Landlords face shifted leasing economics as shoppers intentionally bypass generic anchor supermarkets in favour of destination fresh-market operators. The financial risk shifts toward mid-tier commercial centres that rely exclusively on duopoly supermarket foot traffic without distinctive secondary food anchors to keep dwell times up.

    Earlier Contractions and Format Shifts

    Format discipline has driven turnarounds elsewhere in the Australian consumer sector after earlier overexpansion. Starbucks entered the Australian market in 2000 and shuttered 61 stores in 2008 to leave 23 sites, before rebuilding its footprint around drive-through convenience and mobile ordering to post its first Australian annual profit in financial year 2023.

    Wholesale distributors and independent banners are now tracking whether multi-store grocery shopping rates will hold above the 70 per cent threshold as cost pressures continue across Australian metro centres.

  • ACCC finds Brownes Dairy in breach of Dairy Code

    ACCC finds Brownes Dairy in breach of Dairy Code

    Brownes Dairy has been penalised $22,200 by the ACCC over two breaches of the Dairy Code of Conduct last year. Last year, the WA dairy producer published two standard form milk supply agreements on its website which failed to specify key terms such as a definite end date of the supply period, and allowing the company to unilaterally vary the terms of the agreement.

    “It is critical that processors take active steps to ensure compliance with the Dairy Code so that farmers have the certainty and transparency in relation to milk supply agreements that the Code is intended to provide,” said ACCC deputy chair Mick Keogh.

    “One of the requirements of the Dairy Code is that processors ensure their milk supply agreements are compliant before publishing them on their websites, and in this instance, Brownes Dairy published two supply agreements that were allegedly non-compliant with the code.”

    Under the code, most dairy processors are required to publish on their websites, every June 1 a standard-form milk-supply agreement to cover all the circumstances in which they intend to purchase milk in the coming financial year. This allows farmers to compare processors’ minimum prices and contract terms.

    According to a statement from the ACCC, Brownes Dairy addressed its breaches in the 2021-22 agreements published last month and has undertaken to write to farmers that it had contracts with, advising that it will only exercise its rights under existing agreements to the extent they are consistent with the terms of these new agreements.

    “Ensuring compliance with the Dairy Code remains an ACCC priority. We are continuing to assess agreements published on June 1 this year, and any identified breaches may result in the ACCC taking enforcement action where appropriate,” said Keogh.

  • ACCC likely to continue regulating ADSL access

    ACCC likely to continue regulating ADSL access

    Australian competition regulator the ACCC has made a draft decision to continue regulating access to Telstra’s wholesale ADSL network for a further five years.

    Former government monopoly Telstra is required to provide access to its ADSL network to competitors due to its dominant position in both the wholesale and retail ADSL markets. When a commercial agreement cannot be reached, Telstra must provide access at regulated prices.

    The ACCC had been investigating whether regulated access was still necessary given the progress of the rollout of the national broadband network (NBN).

    “Telstra retains its dominant position in both the wholesale and retail markets for the supply of ADSL fixed-line broadband services on a national level,” ACCC commissioner Cristina Cifuentes said.

    “Continuing regulation will ensure network providers continue to have access to Telstra’s copper network at reasonable prices. This will encourage them to continue competing in the retail market to develop and offer different ADSL broadband products to meet the needs of customers as they prepare to shift to the NBN.”

    A final decision on the matter is expected in early 2017, before the current access declaration expires.

    Lees ook:

  • Australia’s ACCC tackles broadband advertising

    Australia’s ACCC tackles broadband advertising

    Australian competition regulator ACCC has hinted it could introduce rules requiring ISPs to provide accurate information to customers about broadband speeds.

    The regulator has published a discussion paper seeking views on how consumer information about the speed and performance of broadband plans can be improved.

    ACCC chairman Rod Sims said the agency is concerned about the lack of clear information about performance of broadband services provided in advertising and related material.

    “At the moment, it is difficult for consumers to access accurate information as broadband advertising is not focusing upon speed and performance,” he said.

    “Consumers are being presented with little information or vague claims like ‘boost’ and ‘fast’, or just pictures in advertising of athletes or animals. Consumers need accurate information about broadband speed and performance so that they can understand if what they are being offered will actually meet their needs.”

    He noted that complaints about slow data speeds were the top internet-related complaint issue among reports to Australia’s Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) in the first quarter of 2016, accounting for 2,159 reported issues.

    Given changes in the market and consumer expectations related to broadband performance, “the ACCC believes that it is timely to consider what further steps need to be taken in Australia,” Sims said.

    Lees ook: