Many manufacturers take it for granted that they can have a say in the pricing of their products, as they know their competitors and want to position their brand in the market. However, this may raise legal concerns. Moreover, as can be inferred from the guidance recently published by the Hungarian Competition Authority, the authority will continue to take a firm action against unlawful resale price fixing.
Manufacturers often seek to influence the resale price of the products they place on the market in some way. This practice is commonly referred to as resale price maintenance (RPM). The simplest case is where a manufacturer or supplier prescribes the fixed price at which a retailer must sell a product. However, market players often use much more sophisticated means to influence the pricing of their products, such as imposing minimum prices, setting minimum or fixed margin, or applying recommended prices, where compliance is rewarded and deviations are sanctioned.
Pursuant to competition law regulations, any such restriction is unlawful where a supplier seeks to restrict the retailer’s freedom to set its own prices. Moreover, the parties do not need to set out such a restriction in writing or in a signed agreement. The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) may establish an infringement even if the price fixing takes place, for example, though email, SMS or WhatsApp. To establish an infringement, it is not even necessary for the price-fixing to actually take place or for the supplier to attempt to enforce it.
The terminology used by the parties when setting prices is also irrelevant. Labelling a price as a “recommended price” on a price list does not make the practice lawful if the retailer is not, in practice, free to determine its own selling price.
Continued regulatory scrutiny
RPM is not merely a theoretical competition law issue. The GVH has already uncovered numerous infringements and has initiated proceedings in several such cases in recent years. Moreover, just a few days ago, the authority published guidance emphasising that RPM constitutes a particularly serious competition law infringement. The reason is that price fixing reduces competition between retailers and artificially keeps prices high, ultimately harming consumers. The publication of the guidance also indicates that the GVH considers price fixing a priority area, so the authority can be expected to initiate further proceedings in the future to uncover such infringements.
Any new proceedings by the GVH would not come without precedent. In recent years, the Competition Authority has already initiated several proceedings in connection with RPM infringements. In 2025, the GVH imposed a fine of HUF 13.5 million on Lutec Lighting Kft., with the company admitting the infringement. According to the decision, Lutec determined the prices at which retailers could resell certain products to consumers. It also sought to enforce compliance with these prices, including by threatening to refuse further delivery.
The 2026 case involving Maspex Olympos Kft. is even more significant, with the GVH imposing a fine of HUF 335.95 million. In its decision, the GVH established that between 2015 and 2023, Maspex applied a practice with its wholesale partners aimed at determining and enforcing minimum resale prices. In this case, the GVH examined not only the contractual provisions, but also price lists and communications with business partners.
What can a supplier legally do?
Suppliers may recommend a resale price, but its application may not be linked to a reward, nor may deviations be subject to sanctions. The use of a recommended price is therefore generally lawful, if it does not affect the retailers’ freedom to set their prices.
The parties may also agree to apply a maximum price, provided that they do not interpret the maximum price as a fixed price. The retailer must remain free to sell the product at a lower price.
In certain cases (e.g. in the case of a franchise), it is also possible to run short-term promotions, typically lasting 2–6 weeks on a case-by-case basis, during which the parties may determine the resale prices for a limited period as part of the relevant price promotion. It is important that such promotions must be occasional and short-term. The legality of any planned promotion should therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Are only large companies affected?
The issue is not relevant only to large companies. Smaller manufacturers, importers or distributors could also easily establish a sales system that gives rise to competition law risks. Consider, for example, the above-mentioned case of Lutec Lighting Kft., where the GVH examined and found unlawful the practices of a company that did not have a turnover of several billion forints.
It is therefore advisable to review resale and distribution agreements from time to time, as well as the communication of price lists and promotional prices and the use of “recommended consumer prices”.
The rules governing resale price maintenance are particularty important because competition investigation proceedings carry not only the risk of substantial fine, but can also tie up significant internal resources and affect business relationships and the company’s reputation. In addition, companies may be required to terminate the unlawful practice and implement appropriate compliance measures.. For this reason, companies should not wait until after a dawn raid by the GVH to address potential issues. As far as possible, they should proactively review their practices, place appropriate emphasis on competition law compliance and provide their employees with adequate training.