On 14 October 2025, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003  (1) , the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION

(1)

The Decision adopted on 14 October 2025 relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) of the Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement in the high-end fashion sector. The infringement consisted of an anti-competitive conduct in the form of a company-wide resale price maintenance ( “RPM”) strategy implemented by Gucci over several years vis-à-vis its online and offline independent retailers. It covered most of the products designed/sold by Guccio Gucci S.p.A. (“Gucci”), including, in particular, women and men “ready to wear” clothes, childrenswear, leather goods, shoes, fashion accessories, jewellery and eyewear. In addition, Gucci imposed online sales restrictions concerning the so-called “Diana” handbag on its retailers.

(2)

The RPM practice covered the entire EEA and lasted from 30 April 2015 until 18 April 2023. The online sales restrictions also covered the entire EEA and lasted from 8 July 2021 until 31 December 2021.

(3)

The Decision is addressed to the following legal entities: Gucci and its parent company Kering, S.A. (“Kering”) (together referred to as the “Undertaking”).

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

(4)

Between 18 and 21 April 2023, the Commission carried out an unannounced inspection under Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) at the premises of Gucci (Italy). It continued the inspection at the premises of the Commission in Brussels (Belgium) from 10 to 14 July 2023.

(5)

On […], the Undertaking submitted in writing a statement on its willingness to enter into a cooperation procedure with the Commission.

(6)

The Commission initiated proceedings on 4 July 2024.

(7)

Cooperation discussions between the Undertaking and the Commission took place between 9 October 2024 and 3 June 2025. On […], Gucci submitted its formal request to settle pursuant to Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (the ‘Settlement Submission’).

(8)

On 3 July 2025, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections addressed to the Undertaking, to which the Undertaking replied on 15 July 2025 by confirming that the Statement of Objections corresponded to the content of its Settlement Submission and that it therefore remained committed to follow the cooperation procedure.

(9)

On 2 October 2025 the Hearing Officer issued a final report in this case. On 13 October 2025, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion.

2.2.   Summary of the infringement

(10)

Gucci’s RPM practice covered most Gucci products, i.e., products designed/sold by Gucci under the Gucci brand name: women and men “ready to wear” clothes, childrenswear, leather goods, shoes, fashion accessories, jewellery and eyewear (“the Products”).

(11)

Gucci engaged in anti-competitive conduct in the form of a company-wide RPM strategy implemented by Gucci over several years vis-à-vis its online and offline retailers. More precisely, Gucci’s RPM practice consisted of fixing the actual resale price, discount rates during sales periods as well as the dates on which retailers can go on sale and by prohibiting retailers to put any Gucci items on sale unless within the parameters set by Gucci. As part of its RPM practice, Gucci also agreed so-called “no markdown” policies with retailers. Under these policies, retailers were asked not to sell certain products at discounted prices under any circumstances (both during specific promotional events and during the regular end-of-season sales).

(12)

Gucci operated a dual distribution system, and acted as a competitor on the downstream market vis-à-vis its distributors. With the RPM strategy, Gucci aimed to enhance the brand image by achieving and maintaining a uniform retail price level between the wholesalers amongst themselves and between the wholesalers and Gucci’s direct distribution channels, which reduced intra-brand price competition on Gucci’s products. The purpose of the RPM practice was also to protect Gucci’s direct sales.

(13)

In addition, Gucci also imposed online sales restrictions concerning the so-called “Diana” handbag, by issuing instructions asking its retailers to stop selling the Diana handbag online. Gucci’s retailers complied with these instructions and only showed the bag online with a disclaimer that it was only available for sale in physical stores.

2.3.   Addressees

(14)

Gucci is liable for its direct participation in the infringement and Kering is liable as its parent company.

2.4.   Remedies

(15)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines.

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

(16)

In setting the fine, the Commission took into account the yearly average sales value of the Products (as defined in paragraph (10) above) sold in both the indirect (through wholesalers, online and offline) and direct channels (by Gucci’s own shops, online and offline) within the EEA for the period 2015-2023, the gravity, nature and geographic scope of the infringement and its duration.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

(17)

The Commission did not apply any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

2.4.3.   Application of the 10% turnover limit

(18)

The fine for the single and continuous infringement did not exceed 10% of the Undertaking’s total turnover relating to the business year preceding the date of the Commission decision pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003.

2.4.4.   Cooperation reduction

(19)

The Commission concluded that, in order to reflect that Gucci has effectively cooperated with the Commission beyond its legal obligation to do so, its respective fine that would otherwise have been imposed should, for the abovementioned reasons and pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on fines, be reduced by 50%.

3.   CONCLUSION

(20)

The following fine was imposed on Gucci and its parent company Kering pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003: EUR 119 674 000.

---

(1)   OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (the “Regulation 1/2003”).