The cost of control: What the EU Commission's recent RPM fine means for brand pricing strategies

What was the infringing conduct?

1. Restricting Retailer Pricing

First, The EU Commission found that the three companies systematically restricted independent online and offline retailers from setting their own resale prices for a wide range of products, including apparel, leather goods, shoes, and accessories. The anticompetitive practices were in place across the entire European Economic Area and included:

• enforcing recommended retail prices as de facto fixed prices;
• limiting maximum discount rates;
• restricting sales periods; and
• in some cases, prohibiting retailer discounts altogether.

One of the companies also went a step further by banning online sales of a specific product line, a move that further curtailed competition and consumer choice.

2. Price Monitoring and Enforcement

Second, ss part of their anticompetitive pricing strategies, Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe monitored their respective retailers' prices and followed up with those retailers who deviated from RRPs.

This is a common theme. Most European RPM cases in the past decade or so involved a price monitoring element. While EU competition law recognises that using price monitoring and price tracking solutions is not in itself problematic or anticompetitive, decisional practice by competition authorities shows that it is often difficult for brands to disassociate the knowledge gained during their price monitoring efforts from subsequent brand enforcement or commercial decisions (e.g. ceasing direct supplies, withdrawing benefits, limiting range availability). This means that price monitoring solutions are often seen as being (mis)used as a tool to ensure compliance with specific pricing policies.

3. Dual Distribution

Third, the EU's top antitrust regulator also mentioned in its official press release that each of Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe aimed to protect their own sales from competition by their retailers. This highlights another business strategy that is becoming quite exposed to competition law risks.

Brands are increasingly going D2C, which means that they inevitably start competing directly with their own retailers/customers. This new dynamic gives rise to various issues to be aware of, especially as regards information flows, price setting and coordination of commercial and marketing efforts (including sales calendars) as between the brands and their independent sales partners.

Is this a novel infringement or one that is specific to the fashion industry?

There is nothing really novel about the anticompetitive pricing strategies that the fashion houses engaged in. It is well-established under EU competition law (though the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation and decisional practice) that RPM practices are so-called "hardcore" restrictions of competition and that, while theoretically possible, businesses will not really be able to justify such practices.

The conduct is also not fashion or luxury-specific. While these three decisions together constitute one of the largest antitrust fines imposed by the EU Commission against brands operating in the fashion/luxury space, this is not a warning specifically directed at fashion houses. Rather, it's a confirmation of a broader enforcement trend against anticompetitive pricing practices in vertical (supply/distribution) agreements. Indeed, competition authorities across Europe have consistently shown that RPM cases continue to be quite high on their enforcement agenda:

• UK: The vast majority of the warning letters that the Competition and Markets Authority issued in 2024 concerned RPM practices (76% of all matters). These covered many sectors, including: motor vehicle parts, technology products, mobility aids, art, confectionary, tobacco products, sports and fitness, and household cooking equipment.
• France: at the end of 2024, the French Competition Authority (FCA) fined 10 well-known manufacturers of household appliances, together with two major retailers, a total of €611 million for RPM practices, which effectively involved using RRPs as fixed prices, with the manufacturers actively monitoring adherence with such RRPs. Around the same time, the FCA found in a separate case that a "derogation system" which was used by a number of electrical equipment manufacturers to control pricing flexibility, amounted to RPM. This resulted in the FCA imposing €470 million in fines on the companies. 
• Germany: The German competition authority has also been busy on the RPM front. In 2024, it found that a German consumer electronics brand set target prices for products like routers and smart home devices, and monitored retailer prices via software and in-store checks. This amounted to RPM and saw the German authority issuing fines of almost €16 million. More recently, in May 2025, the German Bundeskartellamt imposed fines totalling nearly €6 million on premium audio device brands for illegal vertical price fixing in the sale of headphones.
• Poland: between 2024 and 2025, the Polish competition authority (UOKiK) launched several RPM investigations in sectors such as: smartwatches, coffee machines, CCTV monitoring equipment, or landscape maintenance tools. One of the major RPM cases was a 2024 decision in which UOKiK fined KIA Poland approx. €77 million for RPM.
• Hungary: earlier this summer, the Hungarian antitrust regulator imposed a fine on Lutec Lighting for fixing the resale prices of lamps which Lutec achieved in particular by threatening its specialist dealers with sanctions if Lutec-imposed prices were not applied.
• Lithuania: In Q4 of 2024, Giantera (carrying the Dr. Ohhira brand) and almost 20 of its distributors entered into anticompetitive agreements whereby the distributors were required to comply with suggested retail prices set by Giantera, and could not freely offer discounts or run promotions. Compliance with the suggested prices was monitored by Giantera who would take action against non-compliant distributors (such as suspending supplies). The Lithuanian competition authority imposed fines of almost €1.5 million for these RPM practices.

What does it all boil down to for brands?

The key takeaways from the (i) Commission's decisions against Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe, and (ii) the broader RPM enforcement trend around Europe, include:

• independent resellers (wholesale or retail) must be free to set their own prices and discounts, regardless of brand prestige or market segment;
• brand image protection, or the luxury nature of the goods in question, is not in itself a sufficiently strong justification to allow RPM practices under EU competition law;
• price monitoring, while generally legitimate, must be approached with caution to ensure such tools are used in a competition-compliant manner;
• dual distribution, where brands compete against their own retail customers, creates a number of additional antitrust hurdles that brands need to be aware of and address; and
• brands are recommended to conduct internal RPM "health checks" – simple audits with a view to determining whether their pricing policies are in line with competition law.

If you are a consumer brand operating in Europe, it's worth considering whether to carry out a quick 'health check' to identify any red flags/high risk issues in your pricing policies and strategies. Fieldfisher lawyers have well-known expertise in UK and EU competition rules, in particular in terms of their application to vertical distribution agreements. If you would like to understand whether you are at risk in this area, please get in touch.