Australian retailers on notice over ‘fake discounts’ as Coles braces for record fine after...
完整音频预览
0:00
0:00
#1
Australian Retailers on Notice Over Fake Discounts as Coles Faces Record Fine After Landmark Court Ruling
隨著 Coles 在具里程碑意義的法院裁決後面臨創紀錄罰款，澳洲零售商因虛假折扣而受到警告
#2
A landmark court ruling against Australian supermarket giant Coles has sent shockwaves through the retail sector, with the company now bracing for potential fines exceeding two hundred million dollars.
一項針對澳洲超市巨頭 Coles 的具里程碑意義的法院判決，已在零售業引發劇烈衝擊，該公司目前正準備應對可能超過兩億美元的罰款。
#3
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had accused both Coles and its rival Woolworths of engaging in misleading marketing through deceptive promotional pricing strategies deployed between 2021 and 2023.
澳洲競爭與消費者委員會曾指控 Coles 及其競爭對手 Woolworths 在 2021 年至 2023 年間，透過具誤導性的促銷定價策略從事誤導性行銷。
#4
Justice Michael O'Bryan determined that Coles' widely recognised "Down Down" promotions had, in certain instances, falsely conveyed the impression that consumers were benefiting from genuine price reductions.
麥可·奧布萊恩法官判定，Coles 廣為人知的「Down Down」促銷活動在某些情況下，錯誤地傳達了消費者正從真正的降價中獲益的印象。
#5
Following the ruling, Coles' share price tumbled sharply, reflecting investor anxiety over the scale of corporate liability the company now faces.
在裁決公佈後，Coles 的股價大幅下跌，反映出投資者對該公司目前面臨的企業責任規模感到焦慮。
#6
Woolworths, which is defending a similar case brought by the same regulatory body, also experienced a notable decline in its market valuation.
Woolworths 正在針對由同一個監管機構提出的類似案件進行辯護，其市場估值也經歷了顯著的下降。
#7
The so-called "was/is" pricing strategy, whereby retailers temporarily inflate prices before reverting them and labelling the original price as a discount, lies at the heart of both proceedings.
所謂的「was/is」定價策略，即零售商在恢復原價並將原始價格標註為折扣之前，先暫時抬高價格，是這兩起訴訟案件的核心。
#8
Should the courts impose the maximum penalties, the resulting fines would set a precedent for retail compliance enforcement across the nation.
若法院判處最高刑罰，由此產生的罰款將為全國零售合規執法樹立先例。
#9
Rod Sims, the former head of the consumer watchdog, cautioned that all Australian retailers must now ensure their advertised discounts are authentic.
澳洲消費者監管機構的前負責人羅德·西姆斯警告說，所有澳洲零售商現在必須確保其廣告宣傳的折扣是真實的。
#10
He emphasised that any business suggesting a price reduction had better be offering a legitimate one.
羅德·西姆斯強調，任何暗示降價的企業最好真的提供合法的折扣。
#11
Jeannie Paterson, Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne, argued that the decision served as a stark reminder that misleading advertising could constitute a breach of the law.
墨爾本大學法學教授珍妮·帕特森主張，這項裁決是一個嚴厲的提醒，即誤導性廣告可能構成違法。
#12
She illustrated her point with a hypothetical scenario involving a jewellery store that artificially raised prices weeks before Valentine's Day, only to lower them again and advertise the result as a fake discount.
她用一個假設的情境來說明她的觀點，該情境涉及一家珠寶店在情人節前幾週人為地調高價格，結果卻只是再次調低價格，並將結果宣傳為虛假折扣。
#13
The implications of this court ruling extend well beyond the supermarket sector and could reshape how retailers across Australia approach promotional campaigns.
這項法院判決的影響遠遠超出了超市產業，並可能重塑澳洲各地零售商處理促銷活動的方式。
#14
Were other companies to persist with dubious discounting practices, they would risk facing similarly severe penalties under existing consumer protection legislation.
若其他公司執意採取可疑的折扣做法，他們將面臨在現行消費者保護法規下受到同樣嚴厲處罰的風險。
#15
Legal analysts have suggested that this case may herald a new era of heightened scrutiny over corporate pricing conduct.
法律分析師表示，此案例可能預示著一個對企業定價行為加強審查的新時代。
#16
For consumers who have long been sceptical of promotional claims, the ruling represents a significant step towards greater transparency in the marketplace.
對於長期以來一直對促銷聲明持懷疑態度的消費者而言，這項裁決代表了朝向市場更高透明度邁出的重要一步。