Resale Price Maintenance Violations in the European Union: High Stakes and Even Higher Fines

Whilst resale price maintenance (“RPM”) is generally permissible under federal law in the United States if the procompetitive benefits of an RPM policy outweigh any consumer harm, antitrust law in the European Union prohibits companies from implementing similar policies or engaging in conduct that prevents resellers from independently setting prices. This split in treatment is illustrated by recent investigations into the pricing practices of three luxury fashion companies that resulted in the European Commission (“Commission”) imposing substantial fines for RPM violations.

On 14 October 2025, the Commission fined Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe for engaging in anticompetitive behavior that restricted resellers in setting their own resale prices. While companies may recommend resale prices to their downstream resellers, they must remain free to choose to adopt or to deviate from the recommendations. In these cases, the fashion companies set recommended resale prices, but did not permit resellers to (i) deviate from the recommendations, (ii) offer discount rates to the suggested resale prices above a certain level or, (iii) offer sales outside specified periods. In addition, in some instances, they prohibited the possibility of granting discounts altogether.

The Commission initiated the investigations on an ex-officio basis, and the inquiries ended in fines against the fashion companies in a total amount of EUR 157 million. All three companies cooperated with the Commission during the investigations and received substantial reductions in their fines - Gucci and Loewe each received a 50% reduction, whilst Chloé received a 15% reduction. Gucci and Loewe benefited more through greater cooperation with and production of evidence to the Commission earlier in the investigations.

Enforcement against RPM remains a high priority across the European Union as reflected in the frequent fines imposed by national competition authorities against companies who sought to set the resale prices charged by their resellers. For example, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a EUR 91.6 million fine on Rolex, a EUR 611 million fine in the household appliances sector, and a EUR 470 million fine on several electrical equipment manufacturers. The Polish Competition Authority (“UOKiK”) imposed a EUR 77 million fine on KIA as well as other fines in the pet food and coffee machine sectors.

The investigation and fines imposed by the UOKiK in the pet food case are notable because both the supplier company and certain executives were fined. The UOKiK found that the supplier company enforced its price “recommendations” first through verbal warnings and then through imposing financial penalties against distributors. These penalties included imposing less favorable payment terms, restricting access to promotions, and applying higher wholesale prices. If these tactics proved ineffective to enforce the RPM the company terminated the distribution agreements.

In the coffee machines case, the exclusive importer and distributors in question were found to have agreed on minimum resale prices. The exclusive importer, the distributors as well as a company executive received fines. The exclusive importer set up a monitoring system where non-complying distributors were sanctioned, including through threats that distributors would no longer be supplied or that their distribution agreements would be cancelled. When conducting the dawn raid in this case, the UOKiK not only seized e-mails but also WhatsApp messages. This is an important reminder of the scope of the information that may be gathered, especially in Poland, where natural persons can be fined in addition to companies.

Key Takeaways

Companies selling products in Europe through distributors and resellers should ensure that their actions, policies, and agreements do not prohibit their distributors and resellers from independently setting downstream prices. This includes ensuring language used in contracts complies with RPM laws and that employees within the company do not use threats or other coercive means to obtain pricing commitments from distributors or resellers.

This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Riccardo Celli, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in Brussels-Capital Region, England and Wales, and Italy; Stéphane Frank, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in Brussels (Belgium) and Paris (France); Vanessa Turner, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in Brussels-Capital Region, Düsseldorf (Germany), and England and Wales; and Mateusz Ryś, an O'Melveny associate licensed to practice law in Brussels (Belgium), contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.

© 2025 O’Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved. Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700, New York, NY, 10019, T: +1 212 326 2000.