Vertical price fixing
Catherine Robin
The French Competition Authority has fined ten manufacturers and two distributors a total of €611
million for vertical price fixing in the sector for manufacture and sale of small and large household appliances.
To counter the success of online sales in the late 2000s, ten manufacturers (BSH, Candy Hoover, Eberhardt, Electrolux, Indesit, LG, Miele, SEB, Smeg and Whirlpool) individually agreed with their distributors to maintain high retail prices, thereby protecting their traditional retailers from competition from internet sellers. Two distributors (Darty and Boulanger) agreed to charge the manufacturers’ prices and were fully party to the agreement.
Ten out of the twelve companies involved in the proceeding requested the benefit of the settlement procedure and negotiated with the investigating authorities a range of fines between a minimum and a maximum amount. Only two (a manufacturer and a distributor) contested the grievances against them.
The agreement between the manufacturer and distributors highlights the danger of trying to control resale prices.
When “recommended prices” become “imposed prices” by the manufacturer
The investigation revealed a strategy of continuous communication of «recommended prices» from the manufacturer to its distributors, perceived by the distributors as imposed prices. In addition, the manufacturer regularly monitored the resale prices observed on the Internet, in particular by means of an automated monitor, which gave rise to requests for price increases. The Authority notes that, aware that it had no right to intervene in the determination of the resale price of its products to its distributors, the manufacturer used a «coded language» in which the word «stock» referred to the notion of «minimum resale price».
The distributors’ acceptance to the supplier’s setting of minimum resale prices
The investigation file contained evidence that distributors had agreed to increase prices or maintain prices at a level in line with instructions given by the manufacturer. The evidence also came from certain exchanges in which a distributor’s reaction to an elliptical request from the manufacturer made it clear that this was in fact an invitation to raise prices.
The widespread nature of the practices
The investigation revealed that the invitations sent by the manufacturer were addressed to all distributors. Even if the monitoring was limited to the prices posted by the various distributors active on the Internet, it was reinforced by feedback from distributors who themselves observed the prices charged online by competitors.
Damage to competition
The purpose of the practices was to directly fix the selling prices of the distributors for the various products marketed by the manufacturer. They were clearly detrimental to the free play of price competition. As a result, they had the object of restricting intra-brand competition. The manufacturer was fined €189,500,000. (Decision no. 24-D-11 of December 19, 2024.)