UK: Recommending Retail Prices: How Far Can You Go Now? Part 2

Last Updated: 4 January 2007
Article by Guy Lougher

This briefing updates a note produced in May 2005 in the light of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the JJB, Argos and Littlewoods appeals.

The Court of Appeal on 19 October 2006 upheld two decisions by the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) confirming the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) decisions to fine JJB Sports, Argos and Littlewoods in relation to allegations of price fixing in two separate cases.


The cases involved a consideration of how EC and UK competition law affects:-

  • the extent to which a supplier and retailer can discuss recommended retail prices (RRPs);
  • the circumstances in which a retailer complaining to its supplier about the pricing policies of another retailer may be considered to be anti-competitive; and
  • the extent to which a supplier may seek to persuade a retailer to follow RRPs.

At first sight, the Court of Appeal appears to have taken a narrower view than the CAT had done of when in law price discussions between suppliers and retailers can be construed as anti-competitive agreements. However, on closer examination and having regard to the realities of commercial practice, the Court's judgment may not lead to a material change in the circumstances where an anti-competitive arrangement may still be found to exist.

In particular, it still remains the case that direct contact is not required between competitors for them to be found to have engaged in an anti-competitive arrangement, whether that be to fix prices or to exchange future pricing information. The Court of Appeal agreed with the CAT's finding that such anti-competitive arrangements could be found to exist where retailers used an intermediary (in these cases a common supplier) to implement their arrangement. As a result, great care still needs to be taken when a retailer discusses its retail prices with its supplier.

On price discussions the Court of Appeal has outlined a different test to that adopted by the CAT

The CAT had previously stated that a unilateral disclosure by Retailer A of its future pricing intentions to a Supplier B can constitute a concerted practice if the Retailer could ‘reasonably foresee’ that Supplier B would pass that information on to Retailer C, facilitating an anti-competitive agreement between A, B and C. The Court of Appeal suggested that the CAT ‘may have gone too far’ on this point if Retailer A did not in fact foresee that Supplier B would use the pricing information to influence market conditions or that Retailer C did not appreciate that Supplier B was passing the information to him with Retailer A's concurrence (paragraph 91 of the judgment).

The Court of Appeal instead set out an alternative test (paragraph 141 of the judgment) to that outlined by the CAT. The Court of Appeal indicated that a concerted practice in breach of EC and UK competition law is likely to be deemed to arise if Retailer A discloses details of its future pricing intentions to its Supplier B, in circumstances where Retailer A ‘may be taken to intend’ that Supplier B will pass that information on to other retailers, and the Supplier then does so and where Retailer C may be taken to know the circumstances in which the information had been passed to the Supplier by Retailer A. The Court of Appeal indicated that if Retailer C then uses that information in determining its own future pricing intentions, then Supplier B and Retailers A and C would all be considered party to an anticompetitive concerted practice.

The Court of Appeal indicated that the case for a concerted practice being considered to exist would be even stronger if the exchanges were bilateral. In other words, if Retailer C had also disclosed its future pricing intentions to Supplier B, ‘in circumstances where C may be taken to intend that B will make use of that informatioAn to influence market conditions by passing that information to (amongst others) A, and B does so’.

Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is still prohibited - No change!

The Court of Appeal's judgment does not affect the principle that EC and UK competition law prohibit an agreement between a retailer and a supplier under which the retailer agrees to resell goods or services either;

  • at a price fixed by the supplier or above a minimum price level set by the supplier, or
  • at a price which has been agreed between the supplier and the retailer.

Suppliers can generally use non-binding recommended or maximum resale prices - No change!

Yes, a supplier can1 still issue non-binding RRPs for its products, or impose maximum prices above which its retailers or distributors may not resell the products. However, in each case the RRP or maximum retail price must not be a disguised minimum resale price or a fixed resale price. In particular, retailers must be allowed to resell products at prices below the RRPs or maximum resale prices.

Suppliers and retailers generally should not discuss resale prices with their competitors - No change but watch this space!

The Court of Appeal's judgment does not change the previous rule that suppliers and retailers should not generally discuss resale prices with (nor disclose details of their resale prices to) their competitors. The exceptions to this principle are limited, for example to situations where the discussion occurs in order to give effect to a genuine supplier/customer relationship between them.

Interestingly, however, this issue was raised recently in the context of an appeal to the CAT by Makers UK Limited against an OFT infringement decision, during which the CAT was asked to consider the implications of the Court of Appeal's judgment in a construction context. The facts were that Makers, which was preparing a tender for a particular construction contract, sought a sub-contract price from a company, Asphaltic, that was itself involved in preparing a separate competing bid for the same contract and where Makers learned that Asphaltic was preparing the separate bid.

The OFT argued before the CAT in Makers that collusive behaviour could be found where the following cumulative conditions are satisfied:-

  • an employer knows that a potential sub-contractor from whom the employer had sought a quote is itself tendering for the same contract as the employer;
  • that sub-contractor has given the employer a price for doing the whole job;
  • that sub-contractor knows the potential employer is bidding for the same contract; and
  • the potential employer bids for the contract having received a price from the sub-contractor.

The CAT's decision is awaited with interest.

Can suppliers discuss RRPs with their retailers? - Court of Appeal advises parties to ‘be aware of the risk’

A supplier may wish to collect the opinions of its retailers about whether its RRPs are set at appropriate levels. However, there is a risk that such discussions are interpreted as an attempt by the supplier to ensure that the retailer will observe the RRPs, or as an agreement on future resale prices between them. These risks are increased if there are regular discussions on RRPs between retailers and their supplier, or if the retailers generally adhere to the RRPs.

The Court warned that any party to such vertical discussions needs to be aware of that risk and to avoid it, but in practice this is often difficult to achieve unless very carefully managed. The easiest way of course to minimise the risk is by not engaging in the discussions in the first place.

By way of general guidance, a supplier should only discuss the level of RRPs with its retailers in exceptional circumstances, for example where the supplier is introducing a new product line and wishes to know how appropriately to price it for the market. Even then, the process needs to be managed very carefully as a series of

Complaints by retailers to suppliers about other retailers' prices? - still a minefield

The Court of Appeal considered the situation where Retailer A complains to Supplier B about the low prices charged by a competing retailer, Retailer C, with the intention or expectation that the Supplier will pressurise C to increase its prices or in some way punish C. The Court of Appeal decided that if, following the complaint, the Supplier does take that action against Retailer C then Retailer A and the Supplier B may well be considered to be part of an agreement or concerted practice in breach of EC or UK competition law. In addition, if Retailer C does change its pricing policy in line with the Supplier's approach, then Retailer C will find great difficulty in arguing against being considered part of a tripartite anti-competitive arrangement with Retailer A and the Supplier B.

The Court of Appeal also said that if Retailer A complains to Supplier B who then acts against Retailer C, then all the parties would be liable if Retailer A wants the information to be used anti-competitively and foresaw that it might be so used by the Supplier, who in turn did enter into an agreement or concerted practice with Retailer C (paragraph 86 of the judgment). Retailer A could not argue that it should be excused from liability purely because Supplier B made its own decision to act on Retailer A's complaint. As a result, retailers should still be very cautious when considering whether to complain to a supplier about the prices charged by another retailer.

Does the shift from ‘reasonably foreseeable’ to ‘intent or expectation’ really make a difference?

The Court of Appeal's judgment apparently involves a shift from reasonable foreseeability to intent or expectation. In other words, rather than the test being whether Retailer A did something in a situation where it was reasonably foreseeable that the Supplier would respond in a particular way, the test is now:

  • did Retailer A complain to Supplier B with the intention that the Supplier would take action against Retailer C (or with the expectation that the Supplier would do so), or
  • did Retailer A provide details of its future pricing information to Supplier B with the intention that the Supplier would pass that data to Retailer C (or with the expectation that the Supplier would do so)?

However, it is important to consider the context in which these issues often arise. It is established case-law that in a cartel-type situation a competition authority may construct an infringement finding by using fragmented or circumstantial evidence and/or by drawing inferences or presumptions from the available evidence. In addition, in the real world, competition investigations usually take place in the context of communications, especially e-mails, which are often unfortunately or ambiguously drafted and which are often unhelpful to a defendant seeking to prove its innocence.

As a result, if, following Retailer A's approach, the Supplier does take some form of anti-competitive action then it may in practice be very hard for Retailer A to disprove an allegation that it had originally contacted the Supplier with that objective in mind.

Imagine Retailer A's defence that, when it complained to Supplier B about Retailer C's pricing policy, it did not intend the Supplier to act in an anti-competitive way - even though that supplier did so act and even though Retailer A accepts that it was reasonably foreseeable that the Supplier would react to the complaint in that way. As a practical matter, a competition authority or court is likely to be deeply sceptical about such an argument and may well issue an infringement decision and in the circumstances described above, it may be very difficult for a defendant to prove its innocence. Similar considerations would apply to a situation where information about a retailer's future pricing had been supplied to a competing retailer through a common supplier.

As a result, it can be questioned whether, as a practical issue, the Court of Appeal's new test will really make a material difference on the ground. In the context of a price-fixing case this will be particularly difficult if Retailer A made a number of complaints to the Supplier, or if complaints were made by senior representatives of Retailer A, or where Retailer A's complaints were accompanied by a threat of commercial retaliation (for example, a refusal to buy products from the Supplier in the future) if there was no change in Retailer C's actions.

Legitimate responses - but be careful

In principle it is likely to be legitimate for Retailer A to ask the Supplier B, referring to its general market intelligence that Retailer C is selling products more cheaply, if it is receiving the best commercial terms from the Supplier, and to seek to obtain a lower input price from the Supplier on a purely bilateral basis (paragraph 106 of the judgment). However, if following that discussion the Supplier takes adverse action against Retailer C or seeks to encourage Retailer C to raise its prices, then it may well be difficult for Retailer A to prove that it did not intend that result to occur (see above).

Likewise, a Supplier may generally take a unilateral decision to cancel or reduce sales of a product to Retailer C because of the latter's discounting policies. However, if the Supplier's action follows a complaint from another retailer, or if it follows previous discussions between the Supplier and Retailer C about the latter's pricing policies, then the Supplier's action may well be construed as anti-competitive. In any event, care would need to be taken to ensure that the refusal to supply, or reduced supplies, did not give rise to an abuse of a dominant position if the Supplier has a market share of 40% or more.


1 Subject to some specific exceptions in the UK, such as certain electrical white goods and brown goods. independent bilateral consultations between the supplier and each retailer.

Pinsent Masons' EU & Competition Group Guy Lougher, Giles Warrington, Alan Davis, Kate Rees and Angelo Basu

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.