Australia's Easter chocolate aisle tells a familiar story this year: smaller products, fatter price tags, and manufacturers scrambling to explain why falling commodity prices have not translated into cheaper treats.
The 100g Lindt Bunny has seen a 32 per cent increase across Coles, Woolworths and IGA, according to data from price comparison tool Zyft. Cadbury Mini Eggs have jumped roughly 15 per cent, while Easter chocolates have increased by an average of 26.6 per cent year-on-year, with some favourites like the Crunchie Hollow Egg spiking by 33 per cent.
The pattern extends beyond price inflation. Cadbury's 15-pack of hollow hunting eggs comes with three fewer eggs and costs $1.50 more than last year. In a particularly stark example, one large hollow egg pack has seen weight drop from 408 grams in 2024 to 340 grams in 2026, while the price increased from $12.50 to $18. Buyers are paying 73 per cent more per 100 grams than they did two years ago.
Manufacturers have offered explanations that strain credulity. Mondelez, which owns Cadbury, told CHOICE it has made "adjustments" to products to keep retail prices within a certain range while it "navigates significantly higher cocoa and input costs globally". Yet the raw material picture has shifted dramatically. Cocoa prices have fallen from around US$12,000 per ton to just over US$3,000 per ton. The industry's own defence undermines its case.
The explanation for the lag is partly legitimate. Woolworths confirmed it takes as much as four to eight months for global cocoa price movements to ultimately be reflected in shopping aisles. Mondelez confirmed it buys cocoa well in advance, meaning shifts in commodity prices won't immediately change retail prices. These are real supply chain dynamics. But there is a credibility gap. Even though wholesale prices have dropped significantly, agribusiness experts say consumers may not see the cost of chocolate come down anytime soon.
What explains this gap? The answer lies in price stickiness. Once retailers and manufacturers establish a price point, they rarely retreat. Falling input costs may protect margins rather than flow to consumers. Manufacturers have pointed to rising costs of goods and services beyond cocoa; the price of milk, sugar, packaging, and transport all factor in. That is fair, but it does not explain aggressive shrinkflation while citing commodity-specific pressures.
The second-year repetition is particularly troubling. Products shrunk in 2025 are shrinking again in 2026, suggesting the practice is driven by margin protection rather than genuine cost recovery. Manufacturers have resurrected the practice in time for Easter 2026, unafraid to make further cuts and raise prices higher for products already given the shrinkflation treatment previously.
Government moves toward transparency may help. The government is considering adoption of notices telling shoppers when a product has undergone shrinkflation. This reflects an emerging recognition that opacity works in manufacturers' favour. But notices alone do not restore trust. Consumers resent being given less for more, especially on seasonal items tied to family tradition.
Price relief may arrive toward the end of 2026 and into 2027, provided current geopolitical tensions do not disrupt supply chains and weather in West Africa remains favourable. Until then, Australian households face the familiar Easter dilemma: pay inflated prices for diminished products, or opt for cheaper alternatives. The manufacturers have made that choice harder than it should be.