On 14 October 2025, the European Commission (EC) imposed fines totalling €157 million on luxury fashion brands Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe for engaging in anticompetitive resale price maintenance (RPM) practices across the European Economic Area (EEA). This is another clear signal of strict enforcement against RPM practices across Europe and ongoing scrutiny of the retail, fashion, and luxury sector.

What did the Commission find?

Gucci, Chloé and Loewe are luxury fashion companies headquartered in Italy, France and Spain respectively, active in the design, production, and distribution of high-end fashion products, including apparel, leather goods, and various accessories. In April 2023, the EC carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of all three fashion companies and opened formal proceedings in July 2024.

The EC found that, contrary to the prohibition on anticompetitive agreements in Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe had unlawfully restricted their independent third-party retailers – both online and offline – from setting their own prices for almost all branded products sold under their respective brand names (including apparel, leather goods, shoes, and accessories). The EC concluded that the brands acted independently, but their conduct had similar effects during an overlapping period and across shared retail networks, which justified consolidated enforcement action. The EC found that the brands had:

• imposed pricing restrictions on their retailers, including adherence to recommended retail prices, caps on maximum discount rates, defined sales periods, and at times, prohibitions on discounts, with the goal of mirroring the pricing applied in the brand's own sales channel;
• monitored and enforced compliance, including follow-ups with retailers who deviated from pricing instructions; and
• in Gucci’s case, prohibited online sales of specific product lines.

The EC concluded these practices deprived retailers of pricing independence, softened competition between them, thereby raising prices, and reducing consumer choice.

Each brand received a fine reduction for cooperating with the EC by acknowledging the facts and their liability, which enabled a more efficient investigation and outcome. The fines were reduced to reflect the timing and value of their cooperation: Gucci’s 50% reduction to €119.674m included revealing an infringement not previously known to the EC, while Loewe’s 50% reduction €18.009m included evidence that extended the temporal scope of the infringement. Chloé received a 15% reduction to €19.690m.

What are our key takeaways?

1. RPM remains a top enforcement priority

RPM iswhen a supplier restricts an independent distributor’s freedom to set resale prices – such as imposing fixed or minimum prices, capping discounts, or mandating sale periods. Under EU competition law, RPM is a “hardcore” restriction under the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) (meaning that it falls outside of the safe harbour of the VBER, regardless of its effect). While the European Court of Justice clarified in its Super Bock ruling that fixing minimum prices cannot automatically be presumed to qualify as a restriction of competition “by object” by virtue of being categorised as a ”hardcore” restriction under the VBER, enforcement against such practices has been robust across Europe and competition authorities, including the EC, have maintained a firm position on the harmful nature of RPM.

For example, in May 2025, the German Bundeskartellamt fined audio products manufacturers Sennheiser and Sonova €6m for RPM, and in 2024, fined AVM almost €16m for RPM with electronics retailers. In both cases the companies used monitoring tools and communications to steer retail prices. In 2023, the Dutch court upheld the ACM’s nearly €40m fine against Samsung for coordinating online TV prices, finding that “recommended” prices and price monitoring amounted to illegal RPM. Other national competition authorities enforcing RPM include Hungary (July 2025), Poland (January 2025), Sweden (November 2023), Bulgaria (July 2023), Czech Republic (May 2023), Greece (April 2023), France (April 2023), Belgium (January 2023), Spain (December 2022), and Austria (December 2022).
This is a reminder that suppliers should ensure that recommended resale prices are genuinely non-binding and avoid any direct or indirect enforcement, including subtle forms such as ongoing monitoring, follow-ups, information exchanges among distributors, or repeated reminders to change prices. The EC specifically noted that active monitoring and follow-up actions were significant factors in finding an infringement.

2. Online sales restrictions under scrutiny

Gucci received the largest fine, likely due to its prohibition of online sales – a practice now classified as a “hardcore” restriction under the VBER. The EC’s strict stance is consistent with recent national enforcement. For example, in 2023 the French Competition Authority (FCA) fined Rolex €91.6m for prohibiting its authorised retailers from selling its watches online, rejecting Rolex's argument that it was necessary to combat counterfeiting and parallel trade (see our briefing here). In 2018, the EC fined Guess, a US brand, €39.8m for limiting the ability of distributors to advertise online, as well as restricting retailers from independently setting their resale prices.

Suppliers should exercise caution with any e-commerce restrictions, as brand image and exclusivity are not sufficient justifications for outright online sales bans.

3. Luxury under the microscope

While RPM decisions at EU level are now relatively rare, it is perhaps unsurprising that the EC has targeted luxury fashion where high margins increase the commercial incentive to tightly control downstream pricing. This is the latest in a string of cases (e.g., the EC’s cases against Guess in 2018 and Pierre Cardin in 2024, as well as the FCA’s recent case against Rolex) indicating ongoing scrutiny in this sector.

With enforcement intensifying, this decision sends a warning to luxury brands to review their terms and practices for compliance with EU competition rules, particularly when considering measures and price controls to preserve the exclusivity and aura of their brand. While pricing recommendations are not, in themselves, prohibited, suppliers must take great care to ensure that there is no pressure on retailers to comply and no retaliation or threats of retaliation against those that do not.

4. Beware of follow-on damages claims

The EC’s press release reminds affected parties (as is now standard) that they may bring follow-on damages claims before national courts, with the EC’s decision serving as binding proof of infringement under the EU Antitrust Damages Directive. There has been a notable increase in such actions across Europe, particularly in consumer-facing sectors, driven by the introduction or expansion of class action-style procedures and the rise of third-party litigation funders. Retailers affected by resale price restrictions may argue they lost margin opportunities or sales volume because they couldn’t compete on price, while end consumers may argue that they paid higher prices than they otherwise would have.

For suppliers, this means the financial impact may not stop at, and may far exceed, the fine: civil litigation risk can linger for years and across multiple jurisdictions.

5. Carefully consider the benefits of cooperation

Early, meaningful cooperation can secure substantial fine reductions – up to 50% here – save costs with a quicker resolution. It also mitigates reputational risk and can make it harder for damages claimants to substantiate loss: fully contested cases often end in lengthy, highly detailed published decisions which can provide claimants with evidence of harm to rely on in litigation. For example, Pierre Cardin (which did not involve any cooperation with the EC) faced a comprehensive decision setting out market evidence, including damaging statements about its brand and quality control.

Consumer facing businesses should carefully weigh cooperation versus litigation, with specialist external legal advice.

6. Prepare for unannounced inspections

The Commission is using its broad investigatory powers: unannounced inspections (“dawn raids”) are not reserved for cartels and are on the rise, particularly in consumer and retail goods. In March 2025, the EC carried out raids in the non-alcoholic drinks sector and the Italian competition authority in the jewellery and watch sector; in June 2025, the Belgian competition authority carried out raids in the personal care and retail sectors.

Suppliers should review and refresh their dawn raid protocols and be ready for surprise inspections.