Kartellrechtsrisiko durch MAP-ähnliche Preisvorgaben

Definition

MAP-style (Minimum Advertised Price) policies are closely scrutinised in Australia and are often treated as a form of resale price maintenance (RPM), which is prohibited conduct under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 when it has the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition.[2][3] In practice, wholesalers who manually enforce MAP—by individually phoning retailers, issuing ad‑hoc threats to withdraw supply, or conditioning discounts and supply on adherence to minimum advertised prices—create a paper trail that can be characterised as RPM. This exposes the business to ACCC enforcement, court undertakings, and civil penalties. Under the CCA, corporations can face maximum penalties per contravention of the greater of AUD 50 million, three times the value of the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period, meaning even a modest MAP enforcement program that affects a few major retail partners can translate into multi‑million‑dollar liability. Logic-based estimation using typical Australian competition cases for RPM and cartel‑like behaviour suggests exposure in the AUD 2–10 million range per enforcement action for a mid‑sized national wholesaler, plus legal defence costs typically in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Manual MAP enforcement without antitrust review and without clear, unilateral policy framing therefore represents a major compliance money bleed.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Wholesale appliance and electronics distributors in Australia 🇦🇺 risk ACCC penalties in the range of AUD 2–10 million per matter when MAP enforcement is handled manually and inconsistently. Automation and legal‑rule based MAP workflows that flag high‑risk communications and standardise responses can eliminate most of this penalty exposure.

Affected Stakeholders

General Counsel / Legal, Head of Sales, Key Account Managers, Category Managers, Managing Director, Compliance Officer

Related Business Risks