Resale Price Fixing In Fashion: European Union Imposes $182 Million Fine On Gucci, Chloé, And Loewe

In a landmark decision, the European Commission (Commis sion) recently fined Gucci,¹ Chloé,² and Loewe³ over $182 million (€157 million) for engaging in resale price maintenance (RPM)—a practice in which a supplier dictates or influences the minimum price at which a reseller must sell its products.

Under EU competition law, RPM is considered a serious restric tion of competition as it limits price competition between retail ers and can lead to higher prices for consumers. It is treated as a “hardcore” infringement under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and typically attracts substantial fines.

This decision does not stand alone. Across Europe, regulators are expanding their oversight beyond pricing conduct to scru tinize the ethics of fashion marketing itself. Authorities in the Netherlands, Italy, and elsewhere are pursuing brands for vague or misleading claims, linking consumer protection, sustainability, and competition law infractions under a unified compliance lens. Together, these moves show that Europe's regulators are rewriting the rulebook for the industry: a compelling brand story no longer outweighs the need for lawful and transparent market conduct.

The Infringement

The Commission determined that the three luxury houses— headquartered in Italy (Gucci, part of Kering), France (Chloé, part of LVMH), and Spain (Loewe, part of Richemont)—restricted independent retailers, both online and offline, from setting their own prices across apparel, leather goods, footwear, and accessories. As found by the Commission, the restrictive practices included:

• Enforcing recommended retail prices;
• Limiting maximum discount rates;
• Restricting sales to specific timeframes; and
• In some cases, prohibiting retailers from offering any discounts.

To ensure compliance, the brands actively monitored retailer pricing and followed up with those who deviated. Most retail ers complied, effectively losing pricing autonomy, which in turn reduced competition among resellers. In addition, Gucci imposed online sales restrictions on a particular product line by instructing retailers to stop selling it online. These practices were carried out over several years, beginning in 2015 for Gucci and Loewe, and in 2019 for Chloé, and continued through to April 2023, when the Commission conducted unannounced inspections at the compa nies' premises.

Cooperation Softened the Blow, But the Message Is Clear

All three fashion companies cooperated with the Commission's investigation, leading to significant reductions in fines:

• Gucci: $138.83 million (€119.67 million) (50% reduction);
• Chloé: $22.85 million (€19.69 million) (15% reduction); and
• Loewe: $20.90 million (€18.01 million) (50% reduction).

Gucci and Loewe provided particularly valuable early stage evidence. Gucci's cooperation revealed an infringement previously unknown to the Commission, while Loewe's information expanded the temporal scope of the infringement. Each company acknowl edged the facts and their infringements, allowing the Commission to conclude the case under its antitrust cooperation procedure. None of the companies have indicated any intention to appeal so far.

This outcome reflects a clear regulatory stance: cooperation may mitigate fines, but it does not erase the infringement.

Lessons from the Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe Decision

The Commission's decision offers several clear takeaways for fashion brands and retailers:

• RPM Is High Risk. Setting minimum resale prices for inde pendent distributors, wholesalers, or retailers; enforcing pricing through threats, penalties, or supply restrictions; using indirect methods to influence resale pricing through indirect or subtle pressure or simply following up on pric ing deviations with warnings or disapproval can attract substantial fines.
• Early Cooperation Matters. Full cooperation in antitrust investigations is not optional; but these cases demonstrate that timely disclosure and proactive evidence-sharing with regulators can also significantly reduce penalties if such evidence meaningfully contributes to the Commission's investigation. Gucci revealed an infringement that had not yet been uncovered by the officials. Loewe provided evidence that assisted with the expansion of the temporal scope of the investigation. Authorities reward cooperation that helps clarify facts, corroborate findings, or accelerate enforcement.
• Internal Compliance Programs Are Essential. Clear policies, staff training, contract reviews, and audit mechanisms help mitigate regulatory, financial, and reputational risks.
• Be Dawn-Raid Ready. Have clear, tested procedures for responding to unannounced inspections.

From Price Tags to Green Claims: Fashion Faces a New Era of EU Enforcement

These decisions align with a broader European trend of increased scrutiny of the fashion sector, particularly, around sus tainability and consumer protection.

In the Netherlands, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) tightened its sustainability guidelines following probes into Decathlon and H&M for vague environmental claims. The ACM also joined a wider probe into Shein and reviewed Primark's advertising practices.

Meanwhile, in Italy, the Competition Authority (AGCM) fined Infinite Styles (which manages Shein's European platforms) €1 mil lion for misleading environmental claims, and initiated proceedings against Giorgio Armani and Christian Dior for alleged breaches of the Italian Consumer Code. The AGCM has also recently targeted a clothing retailer, whose identity is not publicly disclosed, for dual price tag tactics in outlet stores—commonly referred to as “Made for Outlet” pricing strategies.

Taken together, these actions illustrate increasing cross-border enforcement in which competition, consumer protection, and sus tainability intersect. Fashion brands are now expected to substanti ate the claims they promote: demonstrating not only fair pricing but also credible environmental and ethical commitments.

Follow-On Risks: Civil Claims and Litigation Exposure

Beyond regulatory fines, companies found to have breached EU competition law face the risk of follow-on damages actions from affected parties—such as retailers or consumers—that may seek compensation for losses caused by the anti-competitive conduct. These claims can be brought in national courts and often rely on the Commission's infringement decision as binding proof of wrongdoing. For luxury brands, this means that RPM violations may trigger not only reputational damage and regulatory scrutiny but also costly litigation and settlement exposure across multiple jurisdictions.

What's Next for Fashion and Antitrust?

The Commission's decision sends a clear warning: restrictive sales practices will not be tolerated, whether in boutiques or online. As enforcement intensifies, fashion and luxury brands should pre pare for heightened antitrust scrutiny across a range of strategic areas, including:

• Online and omnichannel pricing strategies;
• Sustainability claims and consumer protection compliance;
• Algorithmic and data-driven pricing tools that may facili tate collusion;
• No-poach agreements and wage-fixing arrangements; and
• Vertical agreements and selective distribution systems.

As the industry continues its shift toward digital-first and value-driven models, competition law compliance must evolve in parallel. Regulators are making it clear: fair competition and con sumer protection apply across all market tiers—luxury included.

Footnotes

1. Case AT.40840.

2. Case AT.40880.

3. Case AT.40881.

Originally published by The Global Regulatory Developments Journal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.