Corporate Goliaths are finally being challenged for putting profit before people, with ordinary Australians fighting back, writesCarl Rhodes.

FEBRUARY HAS BEENa month of highprofile corporate court cases in Australia, both shining a spotlight an economy where customer welfare is incidental to the pursuit of profit.

In what has been called thecase of the century, Coles is defending a major ACCCactionalleging a planned campaign to mislead customer about discounts on more than 200 everyday products.

Meanwhile, Westpac was in the NSW Supreme Court accused of acting without basicmoralityafter using its corporate might against a customer over a trivial shortfall not of her making.

ANZ and Qantas prove that when corporate greed trumps fairness and equality, democracy itself is at risk.

In both cases, the same pattern emerges of powerful institutions wielding legal teams, algorithms and market dominance in ways ordinary people cannot match.

These are modern DavidandGoliath battles, with David simply trying to buy groceries or secure a mortgage. The good news, at least this month, is that David is fighting back, and winning.

Defending the indefensible

What is particularly remarkable in both cases is the lengths to which the corporations will go to argue for moral justifications for behaviour that reeks of greed and wanton self-interest.

In Westpacscase, Justice David Hammerschlag castigated the banks stance as unconscionable, and said it was attempting to defend the indefensible.

It all started when plaintiff Fiona Vinall inadvertently underpaid her mortgage after anambiguous rate changecommunicationfrom the bank led her think a reduction had taken effect earlier than it actually did.

The $44.11 shortfall was then reported to credit agencies as adverse repayment history information, leading to a sharp drop in her credit rating and refused loan for a new home.

Vinall repeatedly asked the bank to fix the error so she could move on with her life. The bank obdurately refused.

Even when Westpacs lawyers appeared incourt, they argued that the bank was powerless to fix the problem. They suddenly found the power when the Court directed Westpacs CEO to attend. Only then did they finally reverse course and removed the black mark from her file.

As Justice Hammerschlag put it, the refusal to fix the issue was legally unjustifiable and short on commercial morality.

Down, down for Coles

The case against Coles is ongoing, but the evidence outlined so far is serious. Take the example ofStrepsils, a lozenge people across the country rely on the ease an unwanted sore throat.

For at least649 daysColes sold 16-pack Strepsils honey and lemon throat lozenges for $5.50. The court was told by the ACCC that the price was increased to $7 for just 28 days before being reduced to $6.

That "reduced"price was promoted as part of the supermarkets "down, down"campaign that has been running since 2010.

Colesdefendeditself claiming there was no deception, that the $7 was a genuine, undiscounted shelf price, and that the subsequent down down program price was [] a genuine discount. The retailerspositionwas that claimed discount was in no way misleading and represented good value.

As with Westpac, it is a nothing-to-see-here defence.

Coles' lawyertoldthe court dismissively:

Cash strapped customer fighting the cost of living crisis have a different view.

One shoppersaid:

Strepsils may be striking, but it is far from the onlyexample. The court is examiningpricingbehaviour of 245 household items. Arnotts Shapes, dog food, baby formula, yoghurt and deodorant all show the same pattern of a brief price spike followed by a socalled discount that leaves customers paying more than before.

The capital gains tax breaklays bare a system that rewards wealth over work.

Goliath in the system

The problem is not simply whether Coles or Westpac behaved badly. It is that the economic system we have built rewards them for doing so. When commercial gain outranks fairness, when profiteering is treated as professionalism, and when customers become data points rather than people, greed and neglect stop being aberrations, they are a business model.

But these cases show that corporate Goliaths are not untouchable. Regulators, courts and ordinary people are pushing back. Each ruling, each challenge, each customer who refuses to be steamrolled chips away at the idea that power is beyond accountability.

If we want a fairer economy, we need to confront the structures that enable and reward exploitation and disregard. That means stronger oversight, greater transparency, and a cultural shift that recognises that markets serve society, not the other way around.

David may be winning this month, but lasting change will require more than a slingshot. It will require rewriting the rules so that fairness and decency are not exceptions, they are the standard.

Carl Rhodesis Professor of Business and Society at the University of Technology, Sydney. He has written severalbookson the relationship between liberal democracy and contemporary capitalism. You can follow him on X/Twitter@ProfCarlRhodes.

Related Articles

• EDITORIAL: Food, energy and news: Its a neoliberal inequality thing
• Shop Small! The duopoly of Woolworths and Coles is killing small business