The CNMC has sanctioned I.C.O.N. for a decade-long strategy of resale price maintenance (RPM) in the online channel, including a marketplace ban allegedly designed to maintain strict control over prices.

On 3 December 2025, the Spanish Competition Authority (CNMC) fined I.C.O.N. Europe S.L. (I.C.O.N.) nearly €1.2 million for implementing a strategy of resale price maintenance.

What did the CNMC find?

I.C.O.N. is a supplier of professional hairdressing and cosmetic products, operating through a distribution network of wholesalers and retailers and also through its own online direct sales channel. Following a complaint from one of the distributors, the CNMC uncovered a systematic, long-running strategy to eliminate price competition and control the commercial freedom of its distributors across Spain.

Between 2010 and 2024, I.C.O.N. imposed strict resale prices on its wholesale distributors in the Canary and Balearic Islands, contractually obliging them to adhere to the company’s set prices for sales to hair salons. In addition, from at least 2017 to 2023, I.C.O.N. extended RPM practices to retail distributors nationwide (particularly for online sales) by issuing mandatory retail price lists and requiring their implementation on distributors’ websites. Therefore, RPM was considered problematic at both levels of the distribution chain.

The investigation also showed that I.C.O.N. dictated other commercial conditions under which its products could be sold, including:

• Marketplace ban: Distributors were expressly forbidden from selling I.C.O.N. products on third-party online marketplaces. Sales were limited to the distributor’s own website and/or physical salons.
• Discount restrictions: Distributors faced strict caps on discounts, both in regular sales and during promotions. Any use of discount codes or unauthorised campaigns was prohibited.
• Monitoring and enforcement: I.C.O.N. implemented a system to monitor distributor websites, swiftly identifying any deviation from set prices or commercial terms. Distributors who failed to comply faced threats, supply suspensions, and other retaliatory measures.

The CNMC’s investigation revealed that I.C.O.N. not only enforced these restrictions but also coordinated responses among distributors during the investigation. These coordinated statements (mainly claiming that prices were recommended) were not taken into account by the CNMC for exculpatory purposes.

The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) was deemed inapplicable by the CNMC on the basis that resale price maintenance is a hardcore restriction (Article 4(a) of Regulation 2022/720). This conduct was also classified as a restriction by object, thereby precluding any possibility of invoking a de minimis defence.

Marketplace ban

Among the practices investigated by the CNMC, there was a marketplace ban imposed by I.C.O.N. on all its distributors. Interestingly, this marketplace ban was not considered a stand-alone infringement but a commercial condition that allowed I.C.O.N. to maintain strict control over the price of its products.

The marketplace ban was absolute until the final years covered by the investigation, during which I.C.O.N. did not abide by the ban itself and sold its products through an intermediary company (Transparency Quality S.L.) on a leading marketplace in Spain, concealing this information from the rest of its distributors.

Marketplace bans are not listed as hardcore restraints under the VBER. However, the CNMC sidesteps this discussion by characterising the marketplace ban as an element of I.C.O.N.'s resale price‑fixing strategy, rather than a stand‑alone infringement.

In the recent past, the CNMC has also treated other marketplace sales restrictions – less  severe than a total marketplace ban – as  restrictions by object. This illustrates that the CNMC does not take a strictly orthodox approach to such online restrictions and tends to adopt a more innovative line of reasoning, going beyond the analytical framework set out in the recent Vertical Guidelines.

Who is liable?

The Decision also sheds light on the factors that resulted in liability for fines being attributed solely to the brand, and not to the distributors.

• I.C.O.N. was the promoter and architect of the agreement, and the distributors essentially gave their consent to that imposition.
• Despite having participated materially in an agreement, distributors were excluded from the finding of an infringement, because they did not take part in the drafting and conception of the agreement, nor appeared as beneficiaries of its outcome or content.
• Distributors were in a relationship of certain dependence and strategic subordination vis-à-vis I.C.O.N. which did not hesitate to threaten or act against those that breached their rules.

The criteria followed by the CNMC in this decision is not fully consistent with its most recent practice. In particular, the decision does not mention that, in this case, there was evidence showing that some distributors monitored compliance and urged the brand to intervene whenever they detected price deviations.

Impacts on Competition and Consumers

According to the decision, I.C.O.N.’s strategy effectively eliminated any possibility of intra-brand competition between distributors, both online and offline. There is no reference to the restriction of inter-brand competition, given the "by-object" approach. However, the decision states that the restriction hindered the entry and growth of new, more efficient, distribution models.

In addition, by setting uniform, non-negotiable prices and excluding marketplace channels, the company ensured that consumers faced the same high prices regardless of where they shopped.

Sanctions and Public Procurement Ban

The CNMC imposed two fines on I.C.O.N. totaling €1,197,907:

• €637,907 for price-fixing and restrictions in the wholesale channel (Canary and Balearic Islands, 2010–2024).
• €560,000 for similar conduct in the retail channel, at least for online sales, nationwide (2017–2023).

In addition, the CNMC imposed a five-month ban on I.C.O.N. from participating in public procurement contracts for the supply of haircare products (both wholesale and online retail) across Spain. The ban was imposed notwithstanding that the conduct at issue did not concern any public tender market.

This is among the first cases where the CNMC has directly imposed a public procurement ban on a company for breach of competition rules. The question of whether the CNMC (and other regional competition authorities) have the competence to impose such bans directly is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The ruling could be issued later this year.

Key Takeaways

1. Marketplace bans, when combined with other vertical restraints such as RPM, are high-risk: The CNMC’s decision underscores that restrictions on marketplace sales can be interpreted as an instrument to reinforce (or as part of a broader strategy of) RPM.
2. Active monitoring and retaliation aggravate liability: The use of monitoring tools and threats against non-compliant distributors was a significant factor in the CNMC’s assessment of the gravity of the infringement.
3. Double standards may be seen as an aggravating factor: I.C.O.N.’s own sales on Amazon, while prohibiting its distributors from doing the same, were seen as an aggravating factor.
4. Public procurement bans continue to be a real risk: Following the trend of recent years, companies found liable of competition law breaches may face exclusion from public contracts (even if their core activity does not take place in public procurement).

Companies should review their distribution agreements and online sales policies to ensure compliance with competition law, particularly in relation to marketplace access and price-setting.