Politiques relatives aux prix minimaux annoncés : ce que les fabricants doivent savoir

Manufacturers often want to provide some direction over how resellers advertise and distribute their products, both to avoid conflicting incentives among resellers that could undermine the broader business strategy and to ensure consistency of the overall brand. However, agreements that set the actual resale price (known as “resale price maintenance” or “RPM”) remain legally sensitive and can trigger antitrust concerns, particularly at the state level. 

A Minimum Advertised Price (“MAP”) policy offers a narrower, and typically safer, alternative, by restricting the prices at which resellers may advertise products, without limiting the price at which those products may ultimately be sold. When properly designed and implemented, MAP policies allow manufacturers to influence public-facing pricing without crossing into prohibited territory under federal or state antitrust laws. 

This article provides an overview of key legal and practical considerations for MAP policies, including recent case developments that may affect how such policies are evaluated and enforced with respect to online sales.

What Are MAP Policies?

Under a MAP policy, a manufacturer dictates the lowest price at which its products can be advertised publicly by authorized resellers. Importantly, MAP policies do not set or control the final sale price. Rather, resellers remain free to sell the products at any price they choose; instead, the MAP policy merely restricts resellers’ ability to advertise prices below the MAP level.

MAP restrictions typically apply to publicly visible marketing channels, such as online listings, print ads, promotional emails, or third-party marketplaces. They do not usually extend to private negotiations, “in-cart” pricing (e.g., the price that appears to a consumer after adding the product to their online shopping cart), or other forms of non-public discounting. Of course, the MAP policy must define these distinctions clearly to avoid confusion and legal risk.

Properly implemented, MAP policies help manufacturers maintain consistent brand presentation across channels and discourage discounting practices that might harm the ability of full-service or brick-and-mortar partners to properly invest in the brand.

Guidelines for MAP Policies and Online Sales

Manufacturers considering a MAP policy should keep the following principles in mind:

• Clearly List Minimum Advertised Prices for Specific Products. The MAP policy should clearly state the products covered by the MAP policy and the “minimum advertised prices” for each. 
• Make Clear What “Advertisements” Are Covered by the MAP Policy. The MAP policy should clearly define what constitutes “advertising” and specify the marketing channels it covers. This includes traditional formats such as print ads, email promotions, and online listings, as well as listings on third-party platforms like Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or eBay. Critically, the policy should also make explicit that it governs only advertised prices and not actual sales prices, which should remain within the reseller’s discretion to reduce RPM risks.
  • One recurring question is whether a price disclosed only after a product is placed in an online shopping cart qualifies as a bona fide “advertised price” subject to MAP restrictions, or instead constitutes a “sales price” whose control by the manufacturer is subject to antitrust scrutiny as RPM. In 2025, a federal district court held that if a restriction on shopping cart discounts makes it “impracticable” to sell below-MAP on a given online platform, the restriction can be evaluated as a form of RPM. While the decision is fact-specific, it highlights that depending on the structure of the online platform in question, companies may need to consider treating shopping cart pricing as a “sales price” not subject to the MAP policy. 
• Document Internal Rationale: To reduce risk, manufacturers should document the legitimate business reasons for implementing a MAP policy (e.g., protecting brand messaging or supporting value-added retail services).
• Consider “Unilaterally” Issuing and Enforcing the Policy. A “unilateral” MAP policy, which is issued and enforced at the manufacturer’s discretion, is generally safer under antitrust law than a “contractual” pricing agreement where resellers expressly agree. Regardless of whether the MAP policy is unilateral or contractual, manufacturers should enforce their MAP policies on an independent basis, without reseller input or coordination, because soliciting feedback from retailers about MAP levels or targeting particular violators at a retailer’s request can potentially raise antitrust concerns as a form of unlawful price coordination.
• Enforcement and Monitoring: The policy should be enforced consistently across all resellers to avoid claims of discrimination or implied collusion. To enhance consistency, manufacturers should consider having a clear, tiered enforcement protocol in place.

Conclusion

While MAP policies remain a valuable tool for protecting brand integrity and channel strategy, manufacturers must take care to distinguish clearly between advertised and actual sales prices, particularly in complex online environments where that line can blur. Recent case law underscores that pricing displayed within shopping carts or behind login walls may fall outside the MAP safety zone, and treating such pricing too restrictively could invite RPM scrutiny. Manufacturers should carefully tailor MAP policies to the realities of each online platform and maintain clear documentation and unilateral enforcement practices to manage both legal and commercial risk. 

Si vous avez des questions concernant cette publication, contactez les auteurs ou votre avocat chez Foley & Lardner.