China's Supreme Court Resets Resale Price Maintenance Analysis
In its first resale price maintenance ("RPM") ruling since the passage of its Anti-Monopoly Law, China's highest court held that Chinese antitrust enforcement agencies do not have to prove that RPM has an anticompetitive effect before issuing fines for RPM. RPM, also known as vertical price fixing, is an agreement between a manufacturer and a distributor to set the price at which a distributor will resell the manufacturer's products to retailers. The Supreme People's Court ruling establishes a presumption in public enforcement cases that RPM is unlawful, but companies may offer evidence to refute the presumption or argue that an exemption applies. Although the ruling provides businesses with an opportunity to defend RPM in China, it offers little guidance about the circumstances in which RPM in China is lawful. Companies should therefore continue to approach RPM in China with significant caution.
Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.
