Goodwin Antitrust & Regulatory Shorts: Resale Price Fixing in Fashion — EU Imposes a Fine of $182M on Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe

Luxury Fashion Meets Enforcement

In landmark decisions, the European Commission fined Gucci (Case AT.40840), Chloé (Case AT.40880), and Loewe (Case AT.40881) more than $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 restriction of competition as it limits price competition between retailers 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 and typically attracts substantial fines.

These decisions do not stand alone. Across Europe, regulators are expanding their oversight beyond pricing conduct to scrutinize 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 (read our July 1, 2025, Goodwin Antitrust & Regulatory Shorts alert to learn more). Together, these moves show that Europe’s regulators are rewriting the rule book for the industry: A compelling brand story no longer outweighs the need for lawful and transparent market conduct.

The Infringements

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

The restrictive practices included:

• Enforcing recommended retail prices.
• Limiting maximum discount rates.
• Restricting sales to specific time frames.
• Prohibiting — in some cases — retailers from offering any discounts.

To ensure compliance, the brands actively monitored retailer pricing and followed up with those that deviated. Most retailers complied, effectively losing pricing autonomy, which in turn reduced competition among them. 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 both Gucci and Loewe and 2019 for Chloé, and they continued until April 2023, when the European Commission conducted unannounced inspections at the companies’ premises.

Cooperation Softened the Blow, but the Message Is Clear

All three fashion companies cooperated with the European 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
• Loewe: $20.90 million (€18.01 million) — 50% reduction

Gucci and Loewe provided particularly valuable evidence early in their investigations. Gucci’s cooperation revealed an infringement previously unknown to the European Commission, while Loewe’s information expanded the temporal scope of the infringement. Each company acknowledged the facts and its infringement, allowing the European Commission to conclude each 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 infringements.

Lessons From the Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe Decisions

The European Commission’s decisions offer several clear takeaways for fashion brands and retailers:

• RPM is high risk. Setting minimum resale prices for independent distributors, wholesalers, or retailers; enforcing pricing through threats, penalties, or supply restrictions; using methods to influence resale pricing through indirect or subtle pressure; or simply following up on pricing deviations with warnings or disapproval, can attract substantial fines.
• Early cooperation matters. Full cooperation in antitrust investigations is not optional; however, these cases demonstrate that timely disclosure and proactive evidence-sharing with regulators can also significantly reduce penalties if such evidence meaningfully contributes to the regulator’s investigation. Gucci revealed an infringement that officials had not uncovered yet. 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.
• Being dawn raid ready is key. Having clear, tested procedures for responding to unannounced inspections provides an advantage.

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

These decisions align with a broader European trend of increased regulatory scrutiny of the fashion sector, particularly regarding sustainability and consumer protection.

The Netherlands 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, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) fined Infinite Styles (which manages SHEIN’s European platforms) €1 million 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.

Together, these actions illustrate increasing cross-border enforcement in which competition, consumer protection, and sustainability intersect. Fashion brands are now expected to substantiate 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 — who may seek compensation for losses caused by the anti-competitive conduct. These claims can be brought in national courts and often rely on the European 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 European Commission’s Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe decisions send a clear warning: Restrictive sales practices will not be tolerated, whether in boutiques or online. As enforcement intensifies, fashion and luxury brands should prepare 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 facilitate collusion.
• No-poach agreements and wage-fixing arrangements (read our October 13, 2025, Goodwin Antitrust & Regulatory Shorts alert to learn more).
• Vertical agreements and selective distribution systems (read our June 12, 2025, alert, “When Can a Supplier Lawfully Restrict Active Sales in an Exclusive Distribution Agreement?” to learn more).

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 consumer protection apply across all market tiers — luxury included.

 

This informational piece, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided on the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin or its lawyers. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.