Background

The European Commission’s press release follows an investigation initiated in April 2023, when the Commission conducted unannounced inspections at the premises of Gucci, Chloé and Loewe. These inspections were prompted by concerns that the concerned companies may have violated EU antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices including certain horizontal and vertical restrictions Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement). In July 2024, the Commission formally opened proceedings, marking the start of a structured antitrust investigation.

Resale price maintenance

RPM occurs when a supplier restricts the ability of retailers to set their own prices, typically by imposing fixed or minimum resale prices. Under EU law, and more specifically the TFEU, RPM is considered a by object restriction of competition. This means that it is presumed to harm competition without the need for detailed market analysis. The European Commision found that three fashion brands had systematically imposed such pricing constraints on their retailers, thereby limiting price competition and potentially inflating consumer prices across the EU. The Commission confirmed that these practices affected both online and offline sales channels, thereby amplifying their market-wide impact.

The Commission’s decision follows decisions by national competition authorities, which have long been sending clear signals regarding RPM. See, for example, our book Digital Competition Law in Europe for the period 2012–2022.

The Commission’s decision is grounded in Article 101(1) TFEU, which prohibits agreements between undertakings that have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition within the internal market. RPM constitutes a “restriction by object” under this provision, meaning that it is presumed to be anticompetitive without the need for a detailed effects-based analysis. As such, the Commission did not conduct an effects-based assessment nor consider potential efficiencies under Article 101(3) TFEU, as the conduct was categorically unlawful.

The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2022/720, VBER) and its accompanying Guidelines on Vertical Restraints further clarify the legal treatment of RPM. Article 4(a) of the VBER identifies RPM as a hardcore restriction, excluding it from the benefit of the block exemption. The Guidelines explain that RPM restricts intra-brand competition, limits consumer choice, and may facilitate collusion among suppliers or retailers. This classification reinforces the Commission’s ability to pursue RPM cases without needing to demonstrate actual market harm.

Factual findings

The Commission found that Gucci, Chloé and Loewe implemented RPM policies over extended periods: Gucci from April 2015 to April 2023, Chloé from December 2019 to April 2023, and Loewe from December 2015 to April 2023. These policies included direct instructions to retailers regarding resale prices, restrictions on discounting, and limitations on promotional periods. Retailers were required to adhere to recommended retail prices and were penalised for deviations.

The conduct affected nearly the entire product range of each brand, including clothing, leather goods, footwear and accessories. The Commission concluded that the undertakings acted independently but pursued similar strategies aimed at maintaining price coherence and protecting their own direct sales channels from competition by third-party retailers. The Commission emphasised that the uniformity of conduct across brands indicated a sector-wide risk of RPM normalisation.

Legal assessment

The Commission’s decision confirms that RPM constitutes a serious infringement of EU competition law. By fixing resale prices, the undertakings restricted the commercial autonomy of independent retailers and distorted price competition in the market. The practices were not justified by any efficiency gains under Article 101(3) TFEU, nor were they ancillary to a legitimate selective distribution system. The Commission explicitly rejected any argument that brand image protection or luxury positioning could justify RPM under the legal framework.

The decision also illustrates the Commission’s procedural powers under Regulation 1/2003, including the use of unannounced inspections and requests for information. The undertakings were afforded the opportunity to respond to the Statement of Objections and to access the Commission’s investigative file, in accordance with their rights of defence.

Sectoral implications

The ruling has significant implications for the luxury fashion sector, which often relies on selective distribution systems to preserve brand image and control the retail environment. While such systems are permissible under EU law, they do not shield suppliers from liability for RPM. The Commission’s decision sends a clear message that brand prestige and commercial strategy cannot justify restrictions that distort competition and harm consumers.

Luxury brands must evaluate their distribution and pricing policies to ensure compliance with EU competition rules. The decision also serves as a precedent for future enforcement actions in sectors where RPM may be rationalised on commercial grounds but remains legally impermissible.

Our specialists closely monitor enforcement of resale price maintenance (RPM) by the European Commission and the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), both at EU level and within the Netherlands. The recent €157 million fine imposed on Gucci, Chloé and Loewe marks the Commission’s first RPM decision in seven years and sends a clear signal to the luxury sector and beyond. If you are wondering what this renewed focus on RPM means for your distribution strategy, or how to prepare for potential scrutiny, our competition law team is ready to assist with strategic and practical advice.