intervention, framed to suggest that existing penalties have failed to meaningfully influence the behaviour of the country’s largest grocery chains. The political rhetoric lands at a moment when the regulatory ground has already begun to shift. In mid-December, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said in a joint media release, “We’re cracking down on supermarket price gouging to help Australians get a better deal at the checkout. This is all about getting a fairer go for families in their weekly shop.” Subsequently, the Albanese government has made new regulations to ban supermarket price gouging, which will come into effect on 1 July 2026 under the Food and Grocery Code. The rules will prohibit very large retailers from charging prices that are excessive compared to the cost of supply plus a reasonable margin. If chains like Coles and Woolworths breach the law, the ACCC will enforce penalties of up to $10 million, three times the benefit derived, or 10 per cent of turnover, whichever is greater. The obvious question for retailers is what compliance actually looks like in practice. From political pressure to regulatory reality The first answer is that adherence would require supermarkets to demonstrate how prices are set. To enforce an excessive pricing prohibition, a regulator needs this visibility. That will comprise understanding what a retailer paid suppliers, what costs were incurred between the distribution centre and the shelf, what margin was applied and whether that margin is defensible against the law’s “reasonable” standard. In other words, pricing moves from being an internal commercial decision to something closer to an auditable system. The ACCC’s supermarket inquiry, released in stages through 2024 and last year, found that much of the burden of assessing value has shifted onto consumers, with promotions, loyalty programs and complex pricing structures making comparisons harder rather than easier. The inquiry recommended a suite of measures aimed at reducing information asymmetry, including clearer promotion rules, improved price transparency, and, for very large chains, the publication of pricing information that allows independent comparison. One proposal gaining attention in the sector is dynamic price access, in which large retailers make pricing data available digitally, enabling third-party tools to help consumers compare prices across stores. Another recommendation centres on greater transparency around shrinkflation, with clearer disclosures when product sizes are reduced without a corresponding price change. If fully implemented, these measures would change how prices are justified. What compliance looks like The second practical implication of stronger ACCC oversight is that promotional pricing becomes riskier terrain. Separate from the new excessive pricing ban, the regulator has already demonstrated a willingness to pursue major supermarkets over alleged misleading discount claims. Court actions launched in recent years over promotional representations have signalled that the days of loosely framed “down” pricing are numbered. For retailers, this means marketing, legal and commercial teams must work far more closely to ensure that discount language reflects genuine price movement rather than creative interpretation. The risks, rewards and reputational shift for supermarkets The benefits of a tougher regime are clear, and for consumers, stronger penalties promise deterrence and accountability in a sector that has become a focal point for cost-of-living anxiety. For the market, improved transparency could reduce the cognitive load shoppers now carry; the labour of deciphering whether a price actually represents value. There is also a broader cultural benefit. A system that requires prices to be explainable, rather than merely defensible, reshapes behaviour over time. It encourages retailers to compete on clarity as well as scale. But the risks are real, and they are evidently not limited to political overreach. One challenge lies in definition. “Reasonable margin” sounds intuitive, but in practice it is complex, particularly in categories with volatile input costs, perishability and fluctuating demand. Economists have warned that overly blunt pricing interventions can produce unintended consequences, including higher prices if compliance costs and legal uncertainty are passed through to consumers. “Banning excessive pricing will appeal to consumers hammered by cost-of-living pressures, but uncertainty and potential overreach will impose significant costs that will be passed on to the very group the laws aim to benefit,” Dr Rhonda Smith and Associate Professor Arlen Duke (University of Melbourne) have argued. There is also the risk of conservatism. If retailers become overly cautious in discounting or range innovation to avoid regulatory exposure, competition could narrow rather than intensify. And compliance itself carries a cost. The most significant shift, however, is reputational. When grocery pricing becomes a matter of public enforcement rather than private strategy, supermarkets are forced to defend the story of how those prices came to be. That requires a different posture grounded in legitimacy. This is where the current debate moves beyond politics. Whether or not proposals such as store shutdown powers ever materialise, the centre of gravity has shifted. Pricing is no longer treated as a purely commercial outcome with public consequences. It is progressively framed as a public question with commercial implications. By mid-2026, Australian supermarkets may be operating in an environment where the cost of getting pricing wrong is not just a fine, but a loss of trust and where transparency is structural. The most important change may not be how aggressively the watchdog bites, but how clearly retailers can show their workings.