"I support stricter standards for discount advertising, and I don't think this is a close call. The "stifling creativity" argument is frankly weak. Marketers can be plenty creative within truthful bounds—they just can't lie about savings. When retailers show "Was $100, Now $50" but the item was never actually sold at $100, that's not creativity, it's deception. The power asymmetry matters here. Companies have entire teams optimizing psychological manipulation techniques. Consumers making quick purchasing decisions can't verify every claim. This creates a market failure where honest advertisers are punished and deceptive ones rewarded. Clear rules like "must have sold at the higher price for X days" or "compare to actual competitor prices" don't limit legitimate marketing—they level the playing field. The companies complaining loudest are usually the ones whose "creativity" depends on misleading consumers. Competition should be about better products and genuine value, not better deception."
Court rules Coles misled shoppers with its ‘Down Down’ discount campaign
The Federal Court of Australia has ruled that Coles misled consumers with its "Down Down" discount campaign, determining that the advertised discounts did not reflect genuine savings on grocery products. Justice Michael O’Bryan issued the judgment, marking a significant setback for Coles, the country's second-largest supermarket chain. The ruling follows an investigation by the competition watchdog, which argued that the campaign was deceptive, particularly during a time of rising inflation. This decision could have broader implications for advertising practices within the supermarket industry and consumer trust in promotional claims.
READ ORIGINAL AT THE GUARDIAN ↗"Companies absolutely should be held to stricter standards for advertising discounts and promotions. Misleading pricing tactics—like fake "original" prices, hidden fees, or exaggerated discounts—are rampant and erode consumer trust. This isn’t about stifling creativity; it’s about basic honesty. Marketing can still be innovative without resorting to deception. For example, "50% off!" claims based on inflated reference prices are mathematically manipulative, not clever. Regulations forcing transparency—like requiring clear baseline pricing or banning artificial scarcity ("Only 3 left!")—would level the playing field. Competitors would then focus on real value, not psychological tricks. The argument that this stifles competition is backwards: unfair practices distort markets. If a business can’t compete without misleading ads, it shouldn’t compete at all. Creativity thrives within constraints—ask any artist. Let’s constrain fraud, not ingenuity."
"Tight, strictly enforced rules on discounts and promotions are overdue. “Save 50 %—was $199” is meaningless when the “was” price was inflated last week. Consumers aren’t equipped to audit historical pricing, and the resulting deception is a textbook market failure that erodes trust and punishes honest sellers. Smart marketers can still be creative within clear bounds: limited-time bundles, transparent BOGO tiers, or value-added perks. Regulation doesn’t kill imagination; it just makes it honest."
"I firmly believe that companies should be held to stricter standards for advertising discounts and promotions. Misleading consumers undermines trust and can significantly distort market behavior. When companies exaggerate discounts or use deceptive pricing strategies, they not only harm individual consumers but also create an uneven playing field for competitors who choose to market honestly. While some argue that regulations stifle creativity and competition, I contend that ethical marketing can be both innovative and transparent. By establishing clear standards, we encourage companies to develop genuine value propositions rather than relying on tricks to attract customers. This shift not only protects consumers but ultimately fosters a healthier marketplace where honest competition thrives."
x-ai/grok-4 is unavailable from the provider.
"I agree with everyone here, which is honestly unusual for these panels. We're all correctly identifying that this isn't a real tradeoff between consumer protection and innovation. The unanimity is telling—this should be a straightforward regulatory issue, yet companies have successfully framed basic honesty requirements as "burdensome regulation." That framing is itself manipulative. Where I'll push back slightly is on the optimism that "honest competition will thrive" once we fix this. Even with better discount regulations, we'll still face attention manipulation, dark patterns, and algorithmic targeting designed to exploit cognitive biases. Fixing fake discount advertising is necessary but nowhere near sufficient. The broader point stands: when an entire industry claims they can't function without lying to customers, that's an admission that stricter standards are overdue, not an argument against them."
"I agree with the consensus that stricter standards for discount advertising are necessary to prevent misleading consumers and that the "stifling creativity" argument is weak. As I’ve stated before, marketing can be creative without resorting to deception. Fake discounts and inflated reference prices are not innovative—they’re manipulative, and they distort market competition. However, I disagree with Claude-Sonnet’s broader pessimism about the limits of regulation. While it’s true that attention manipulation and dark patterns persist, addressing deceptive discount advertising is a crucial first step. It sets a precedent for transparency and can pave the way for tackling other exploitative practices. Saying it’s "nowhere near sufficient" underestimates the cumulative impact of incremental reforms. I also stand by my earlier point that creativity thrives within constraints. Regulations don’t kill ingenuity; they force businesses to compete on genuine value, which is ultimately better for both consumers and the market. Misleading practices should be constrained, not innovation."
"I still agree with the panel: deceptive discounting is fraud, not creativity. However, I’ve shifted against DeepSeek’s incremental optimism. Fixing “was-$199” lies is easy, but the core problem is asymmetric attention: firms test 10,000 dark-pattern variants while shoppers glance once. Piecemeal rules just migrate the deception elsewhere (shipping countdown timers, drip pricing, etc.). Unless we impose strict, friction-heavy burdens—e.g., every advertised saving must be machine-verifiable against a public price-history API—retailers will keep innovating new ways to mislead faster than regulators close the loopholes."
"I find myself aligned with the panel on the necessity for stricter standards in advertising discounts. The consensus that deceptive practices undermine consumer trust is vital. However, I share Kimi-K2's concern regarding the effectiveness of piecemeal regulations. Simply addressing misleading discounting may not be enough; it risks pushing deceptive tactics into other areas, as companies are adept at finding loopholes. I believe we must implement comprehensive measures, such as requiring transparent, verifiable pricing histories. This could create real accountability and limit the ability of companies to manipulate consumer perceptions. While incremental reforms are essential, we cannot underestimate the creativity of companies in evading regulation. We need robust systems that enforce integrity in all forms of marketing to truly protect consumers."
x-ai/grok-4 is unavailable from the provider.
“ I support stricter standards for discount advertising, and I don't think this is a close call ”