From Gucci to Temu: authorities’ focus on vertical infringements

For some years now, the European competition authorities have consistently taken action against vertical price fixing and restrictions on cross-border trade. This trend is continuing. The authorities focus in particular on the fashion industry and on proceedings involving online marketplaces.

Pricing in online sales

The luxury fashion brands Gucci, Chloé and Loewe required their retailers not to deviate from the recommended retail prices, certain maximum discounts and season-end sales periods. The aim was to avoid discrepancies in prices and conditions between direct sales and indirect sales via own retailers. The European Commission considered this an unlawful restriction of retailers’ freedom to set prices and imposed fines totalling €157 million. In return for their cooperation with the European Commission, the manufacturers received significant reductions in fines, in some cases by as much as 50 %. The authority is thus consolidating its practice of granting fine reductions in vertical cases, even though the leniency programme and the settlement notice only provide for reductions in the case of horizontal infringements.

In the consumer electronics sector, the German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) imposed a fine of €6 million on Sennheiser, Sonova and three responsible employees. The employees had urged retailers to raise their retail prices. The Federal Cartel Office continuously monitored retail prices via online price comparison services and special software to detect deviations from recommended retail prices and then intervened. When Sonova acquired the business divisions concerned from Sennheiser, the responsible employees continued the inadmissible practices. Here too, the companies received substantial reductions in fines for their cooperation.

The German Federal Cartel Office is also investigating whether the online marketplaces Temu and Amazon use control mechanisms to unlawfully influence retailers’ pricing.

Stricter requirements for exclusive distribution systems

In its Beevers Kaas judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the conditions for the block exemption of exclusive territorial allocations in exclusive distribution systems. It held that an exclusive distribution right for a territory requires an explicit agreement with all excluded distributors. The mere absence of active sales by foreign distributors is not sufficient. The Court of Justice of the European Union added that a tacit agreement is possible. However, this requires the supplier expressly to ask distributors not to actively sell into the exclusive territory. The supplier must then monitor compliance and sanction any infringements.

First proceedings regarding category management

“Category management” means that retail chains such as supermarkets entrust the management of a particular product category to a specific supplier (the “category manager”). The category manager’s remit may also cover competing products. As a result, the category manager may influence the selection, placement and advertising of competing products. The European Commission is now relying on this theory for the first time in proceedings on the abuse of a dominant position, specifically against Red Bull. The company is alleged to have granted retailers monetary and non-monetary advantages if they delisted other energy drinks over 250 ml or gave them less favourable shelf positions.

2026: online trade and pricing

In 2026, we can expect the competition authorities to continue to scrutinise retailers’ freedom to set prices, particularly in online sales via their own shops and platforms. Given the stringent requirements established in the Beevers Kaas judgment, competition authorities are also likely to examine exclusive distribution systems more closely.

This article is part of the Competition Outlook 2026. You can find all Competition Outlook articles here.