The Federal Court has upheld the ACCC case that "Was/Now" pricing in catalogues advertising jewellery sold at around 100 Zamel stores throughout Australia was misleading. The owners of Zamel claimed that they were discount stores and consumers would know that the "was" price was just the offered price from which negotiation of a discounted price would begin. The "now" price was the reduced offer price. The Court held that many consumers would be unaware of the ability to discount and would see the "Was/Now" pricing advertised in catalogues as representing the level of savings that they will make if they buy now compared to when the "was" prices applied. In fact, the ACCC evidence established that the "was" prices were hardly ever paid for any of the items in the 4 months before the advertising in the catalogues. The Court held that 4 months was an appropriate period given how regular catalogue sales of the jewellery occurred. Given that roughly a million dollars was spent on the catalogue advertising, and that Zamel stores had been prosecuted for similar conduct in the past, a significant penalty is likely to follow when the Court determines the appropriate remedies.