Why the EU just fined Gucci, Chloé and Loewe €157 million—and what fashion insiders didn’t see coming

The European Commission has imposed fines exceeding €157 million on three of the fashion world’s most prominent luxury labels—Gucci, Chloé and Loewe—for engaging in anticompetitive pricing practices across the European Economic Area (EEA). The ruling, announced on October 14, 2025, found that all three companies engaged in resale price maintenance (RPM), a form of vertical price-fixing, by preventing independent retailers from setting their own prices—online or offline—for products sold under the respective brand names.

According to the Commission, this practice violated Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, both of which prohibit agreements or concerted practices that restrict competition and impact trade within the Single Market. This type of pricing control, while often seen as brand protection, directly undermines market competition, limits consumer choice, and artificially inflates prices across the retail chain.

Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera said the decision underscores the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that pricing autonomy remains in the hands of independent retailers and that all consumers—regardless of what or where they buy—should benefit from true market competition.

How long did the violations last and which markets were impacted by the anticompetitive practices?

The investigation revealed that Gucci, Chloé and Loewe maintained long-running and independent schemes to suppress retail price competition. Gucci was found to have engaged in anticompetitive behavior from April 2015 to April 2023, an eight-year period. Loewe’s conduct spanned from December 2015 through April 2023, while Chloé’s lasted from December 2019 until the same end date.

The practices were widespread, affecting both e-commerce and physical retail outlets across the entire EEA. The restrictions covered a broad portfolio of products including clothing, handbags, shoes and accessories. Retailers were instructed not to deviate from the brands’ recommended retail prices, to limit discounts within prescribed maximum thresholds, and in some cases, to avoid offering any discounts at all. These directions not only removed price-setting independence but were directly intended to protect the brands’ own direct-to-consumer (DTC) sales channels from being undercut.

In one particularly concerning case, Gucci was found to have prohibited online sales of specific product lines by instructing retailers to remove the items from their digital platforms entirely. These orders were followed, illustrating the significant influence the fashion house wielded over its reseller network.

What enforcement tactics did the fashion brands use to maintain resale price control?

All three fashion labels employed systematic monitoring of their resellers’ pricing behavior. Retailers that deviated from the mandated price structure were identified and contacted by brand representatives. The Commission noted that most retailers either complied from the outset or adjusted their pricing policies following requests to do so.

The brands used a combination of direct communication, contractually embedded obligations, and implicit pressure to enforce price discipline. In doing so, Gucci, Chloé and Loewe effectively created a retail environment where independent sellers were discouraged from competing on price. The Commission concluded that these tactics resulted in reduced price competition across high-end fashion, with consumers ultimately paying more than they otherwise would in a truly competitive retail ecosystem.

By aligning prices across independent retailers and their own branded stores, the fashion houses insulated their own sales from downward price pressure. This practice also served to standardize the luxury experience—but at the cost of market competition, which is a core tenet of EU law.

How were the fines calculated and why did cooperation result in reductions?

The European Commission imposed financial penalties on each company based on the seriousness and duration of the infringement, its geographic scale, and the value of affected sales in the EEA. Importantly, all three fashion houses opted to cooperate under the Commission’s antitrust cooperation procedure, which encourages companies to admit liability and assist investigators in return for reduced fines.

Gucci received a 50% reduction in its penalty after it voluntarily disclosed previously unknown evidence that expanded the scope of the case. The Italian luxury house was ultimately fined €119,674,000. Loewe, the Spanish fashion brand owned by LVMH, also received a 50% reduction for providing valuable evidence that extended the timeline of its infringement and was fined €18,009,000. Chloé, the French fashion house under Richemont, was fined €19,690,000 after receiving a smaller 15% reduction due to its later-stage cooperation.

All three brands acknowledged the facts and the legal qualification of their conduct as breaches of EU competition law. This admission allowed the Commission to fast-track the cases and conclude them without prolonged litigation.

How does this enforcement decision reshape EU competition policy in luxury fashion?

The Commission’s ruling is expected to have a ripple effect across the broader fashion industry, especially within the luxury segment where brand control and selective distribution networks are deeply entrenched. Although Gucci, Chloé and Loewe acted independently and were not accused of collusion, their overlapping practices and shared reseller networks highlighted the pervasiveness of RPM in the industry.

This case also sends a clear signal that enforcement priorities now include both traditional physical retail practices and modern digital commerce, with regulators keen to ensure that competition policy keeps pace with omnichannel strategies. The fines mark a strong stance against legacy pricing structures in the luxury sector and challenge long-held assumptions about the limits of brand protection in a consumer-first market framework.

Legal observers believe the ruling may prompt other fashion and luxury conglomerates to reassess their commercial policies to avoid similar scrutiny. This includes reviewing pricing agreements, internal monitoring processes, and the structure of selective distribution contracts that limit retail freedom.

What are the legal tools and frameworks underpinning the Commission’s action?

The Commission’s decisions are grounded in established EU law, particularly Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. These articles prohibit agreements and concerted practices between companies that restrict or distort competition. The Commission’s 2006 Guidelines on Fines and Regulation 1/2003 provided the legal basis for calculating penalties and pursuing enforcement.

The use of the antitrust cooperation procedure also reflects a broader shift in how the Commission expedites complex competition cases. By incentivizing companies to acknowledge their wrongdoing early and assist in fact-finding, the Commission saves time and resources while ensuring accountability. However, companies must still meet high thresholds for disclosure and cooperation to qualify for such leniency.

Furthermore, the legal doctrine of binding proof under EU law means that any Commission decision that has become final serves as irrefutable evidence of infringement in follow-on civil litigation. This opens the door for affected parties—including retailers or rival companies—to pursue damages in national courts.

What avenues exist for retailers or consumers to claim damages for these violations?

Retailers who suffered commercial harm due to the enforced pricing policies may now seek damages through legal action in national courts of EU Member States. Under the Antitrust Damages Directive, claimants can rely on the Commission’s decision as proof that a violation occurred, making it significantly easier to pursue compensation.

These civil actions may cover lost profits, reduced sales volumes, or competitive disadvantages that arose from the inability to set market-driven prices. Retailers that were forced to sell at higher prices than they otherwise would have may also argue that their consumer base shrank or that their competitiveness was adversely affected.

From a consumer standpoint, while direct action is less common, class action frameworks in certain EU jurisdictions may offer pathways for collective redress. Legal experts expect a wave of litigation across affected markets, particularly from multi-brand luxury retailers who stock goods from all three of the penalized fashion houses.

How has the market responded and what does this mean for future luxury enforcement?

Institutional investors and compliance watchers are paying close attention to the reputational and operational risks now facing Gucci, Chloé and Loewe. While none of the three are listed independently, their parent companies—Kering, Richemont and LVMH—may need to address questions from shareholders regarding compliance frameworks and antitrust exposure.

The broader luxury sector is expected to adopt a more cautious stance in managing relationships with third-party resellers. Industry analysts suggest that this case could encourage luxury houses to invest more heavily in direct-to-consumer channels, which offer greater pricing control without regulatory entanglement. However, this may come at the cost of reseller reach and brand accessibility.

In the long term, luxury brands will likely need to strike a careful balance between brand positioning and compliance with evolving competition law. The Commission’s decision makes clear that selective distribution and brand control cannot be used as a pretext for circumventing the fundamental rules of market competition.