A Deep Breakdown of What Really Happened and What It Means for the Business World
The €157 million fine imposed on Gucci, Chloé and Loewe reflects more than a simple violation. It illustrates how the European competition framework handles vertical restraints and why modern brands need to understand the technical side of pricing regulations before attempting to control market behavior.
This incident is a perfect example of what happens when brand strategy, legal compliance, and market mechanics collide.
What Is Resale Price Maintenance RPM
Resale Price Maintenance occurs when a manufacturer instructs retailers to sell products at a specific price, often a minimum price. RPM is classified as a vertical agreement between supplier and distributor. Vertical agreements fall under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TFEU.
The reason RPM is treated severely is that it directly affects the pricing freedom of independent retailers. Under EU law, any agreement that restricts the ability of retailers to determine their own resale prices is categorized as a hardcore restriction. Hardcore means the practice is presumed anticompetitive without any need to prove actual negative effects.
In this case, Gucci, Chloé and Loewe were found to have monitored discounts, instructed sellers not to go below certain price points, and interfered with promotional campaigns. These practices restrict intra brand competition and automatically violate Article 101 TFEU.
How EU Competition Law Evaluates Such Behavior
To understand the seriousness of the fine, it is important to understand how the EU structures competition law.
Article 101 TFEU
Prohibits agreements between companies that may restrict or distort competition within the internal market. This includes price fixing, market sharing, and limitations on retail pricing.
Vertical Block Exemption Regulation VBER
The VBER provides potential exemptions for supplier retailer agreements. However RPM is explicitly excluded from this exemption. That means even if the supplier has a small market share or even if the agreement seems rational from a brand perspective, RPM is automatically unlawful.
Market Power Consideration
Even though market share matters for many vertical agreements, for RPM market share does not provide protection. A luxury brand with a five percent market share is treated the same as one with a fifty percent share for RPM.
Monitoring Practices
The EU considers the following behaviors as evidence of RPM
retail price monitoring systems
restricting online discounts
restricting seasonal sales
reacting to retailers who try to reduce prices
providing benefits only if a retailer follows the dictated price
If any monitoring mechanism is used to indirectly force a retailer to stick to a minimum price, it is still considered RPM.
Why Luxury Brands Do It
Luxury retailers typically attempt RPM for brand protection. They believe that controlling prices maintains exclusivity, reduces price erosion and protects brand image across different markets.
However, brand protection cannot legally justify direct or indirect price fixing. Luxury brands can legally focus on
selective distribution
quality controls
store presentation standards
retailer training requirements
But they cannot interfere with final resale pricing. Once the goods are sold to a retailer, pricing freedom must remain independent.
Technical Breakdown of the Pricing Strategies
Luxury houses often use multi layered pricing systems. Here are the technical mechanisms and how regulators analyze them.
Minimum Advertised Price MAP Policies
MAP restricts the price retailers can publicly advertise. In many jurisdictions, MAP can be legal if it does not require retailers to actually sell at the MAP.
In the EU, MAP combined with any pressure mechanism is treated as RPM.
Dual Pricing
Sometimes suppliers offer different wholesale prices for online and offline channels. This is allowed under the 2022 VBER update but only if the intention is not to block online competition.
Margin Squeezing
When suppliers set wholesale prices so high that retailers cannot offer discounts without losing money. This is not illegal by itself unless combined with explicit or implicit RPM directives.
Price Signaling and Indirect Pressure
Regular communication with retailers such as
We prefer stores to maintain premium price levels
Your discounting activity is affecting brand value
Your competitors are staying within the suggested price
These communications constitute indirect RPM. It is evaluated based on intent and actual market behavior.
Market Wide Effects of RPM
Consumer Welfare Loss
RPM results in artificially inflated prices, slowing down price competition. Consumers lose access to lower price options.
Reduction in Retail Innovation
When prices are fixed, retailers lose incentive to improve services, build loyalty programs or innovate in the retail experience.
Barriers to Entry
New entrants cannot compete by offering lower prices which directly affects market diversity and innovation.
Cross Border Problems
In the EU free market, consumers can shop across borders. If RPM is enforced across regions, it prevents natural price balancing that normally comes from cross border shopping.
Business Defamation Inside Market Regulation
While this case is not about defamation, defamation becomes relevant when brands try to pressure retailers indirectly.
In business law, if a supplier publicly undermines a retailer, threatens reputational damage or spreads negative performance claims to force compliance with pricing, this becomes
commercial defamation
commercial coercion
unfair trading practice
These actions can trigger additional penalties.
Defamation in business is evaluated by checking whether a statement
is untrue
harms the economic reputation of a business
was communicated to third parties
was intended to pressure or manipulate
Some RPM cases escalate because suppliers pressure retailers by saying things like
This store is harming brand image
This retailer devalues luxury product positioning
If these statements are untrue or exaggerated, they fall into commercial defamation territory. While this was not highlighted in the Gucci, Chloé and Loewe case, it is often part of vertical restriction investigations.
Strategic Lessons for Brands
If you want to maintain premium perception, the safe path is to invest in
brand equity
product quality
unique design
experiential retail
limited editions
storytelling
Not rigid control of retailer pricing.
Modern luxury relies on emotional value not artificially maintained price floors.
Conclusion
The fines against Gucci, Chloé and Loewe represent a turning point for luxury business practices. Regulators are signaling that brand value cannot come at the expense of market freedom.
For companies, from luxury houses to mid tier brands, the message is simple
innovate your brand, not your price manipulation methods.