Fines for vertical conduct violations drop despite continued RPM vigilance

2025 fine levels were, in fact, higher than in 2023, suggesting a return to more typical enforcement levels for vertical conduct. A continued focus on resale price maintenance (RPM) is also evident, while the EU signals future scrutiny of territorial supply constraints.

Key statistics 

European Commission (EC): The EC was the most active enforcer of vertical conduct violations in 2025, accounting for 59% of global fines. The EC has focused on the consumer and retail sector, an area we expect the authority to continue to have in its sights as cost-of-living pressures mount—see Consumer and policy objectives underpin enforcement in key sectors for more details .

EU member states: Fines across the EU member states decreased significantly after a record fine volume in 2024. The most significant 2025 decision was an aggregate fine of USD30.2m imposed by Romania’s Competition Council on Philip Morris Trading and two distributors for fixing resale prices for heated tobacco products. Notably, while one of the distributors cooperated with the authority and benefitted from a fine reduction, Philip Morris Trading announced its intention to appeal the fine.

Americas (exc. U.S.): Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE ) accounted for the majority of the fine volume in the Americas. This included two decisions finding companies in the life sciences sector liable for sharing commercially sensitive information with entities at different levels of the supply chain.

APAC: APAC was the only region with an increase in fine volume compared to 2024. The relatively small uptick was largely down to fines levied by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) on Dunlop Sports Korea and Bullsone for imposing minimum resale prices on the sale of golf products and automotive accessories respectively.

Resale price maintenance leads the pack

The EC imposed fines of over USD175 million on three fashion houses for engaging in RPM. The brands restricted independent retailers from setting their own online and offline retail prices, imposed discount limits, specified periods for sales, and closely monitored compliance with their pricing policies.

On imposing the fine, competition commissioner Teresa Ribera warned that the decision sends “a strong signal to the fashion industry and beyond” that “[i]n Europe, all consumers, whatever they buy, and wherever they buy it, online or offline, deserve the benefits of genuine price competition.”

The Turkish antitrust authority penalized Adidas with a USD10.2m fine for determining specific discount rates that retailers were allowed to apply and restricting the timing of discount periods. Intriguingly, the authority had initially cleared Adidas of the infringements in 2022, before the clearance was annulled by a Turkish administrative court and a new investigation was launched.

2026 has already seen a number of notable cases, including in Poland (where a bathroom fixtures distributer and two managers were fined for “meticulously supervised” RPM) and in Spain (where the Spanish antitrust authority enforced against RPM and online marketplace prohibitions in the market for professional hairdressing products, including a ban on the beauty company from participating in public tenders).

Looking ahead, we expect RPM enforcement to remain on the agenda in Europe and APAC in particular. In China, it will be interesting to see if an upswing in enforcement will follow the finalization of clarified safe harbor provisions for vertical agreements—these took effect in February 2026. 

Antitrust authorities make use of settlement and commitments as enforcement tools

Signaling a willingness on the part of businesses under investigation and authorities to cooperate, 43% of decisions involved a settlement in 2025, an uptick from 38% in 2024. 50% of the decisions involving a settlement resulted in authorities requiring, or parties committing to, a change in conduct.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), for example, accepted court enforceable undertakings from suppliers of car technology products, golf equipment, and drones to remove clauses restricting distributors’ ability to advertise products below a specified price. This is a trend that can be seen in Beyond fines, soft enforcement rises, discussing authorities’ willingness to take a light-touch approach to achieving impactful enforcement.

Territorial supply constraints in the EC’s “terrible ten”

The EC published its “Single Market Strategy” in May 2025, in which it designated unjustified territorial supply constraints (TSCs) as one of the “terrible ten” practices most harmful to the functioning of a unified EU market. It considered that, in the retail sector, TSCs limit consumer choice and contribute to significant price differences across the EU, “notably for daily consumer goods.”

Addressing TSCs is a fascinating example of where the EU’s single market objectives align with its antitrust objectives. In September 2025, a number of member states urged the EC to utilize means beyond antitrust law. They suggested, for example, that the EC could use the ongoing revision of the Unfair Trading Practices Directive to identify additional unjustified harmful supply restrictions. A proposal for enforcement tools targeting TSCs is expected in late 2026 - the EC published a call for evidence in early March 2026.

In the meantime, the EC is continuing to apply antitrust law to the issue. In 2024, it fined Mondelēz for hindering the cross-border trade of chocolate, biscuits, and coffee products between EU member states, and Pierre Cardin and its licensee Ahlers for restricting cross-border sales of clothing.

In 2025, while there were no fines for conduct involving territorial restrictions, the EC carried out dawn raids at the premises of companies active in the non-alcoholic drinks sector in several EU member states and asked for information in the personal care sector. The EC stated that it was investigating “possible restrictions on the trade of goods in the Single Market and market segmentation.”