Failure by senior managers to fulfill this particular responsibility should not be without consequences. In the cases of Korg, Casio and Fender, the fines were increased because executives and executives were involved in illegal and complicit behavior, while they were trained to respect competition. Within GAK, management`s failure to take concrete action in response to a CMA advisory letter also resulted in a significant increase in the fine imposed on the retailer. In many cases, parties to retailers may be perceived as „passive“ participants in such violations, and the CMA may have seen the benefit of retaining retail parties as cooperative allies and a good source of evidence gathering against the supplier, and chose not to enforce the law against them in order to maintain this momentum. Of course, retailers can also apply for immunity under the CMA`s leniency program and the awareness this case will create among suppliers guilty of rpm infringements increases the risk for retailers of being subject to an investigation into the RPM competition law in which they participated. April 2018 – CMA announces that it has opened five investigations into alleged anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices involving musical instruments and apparatus. Although controlling a company`s own market position is a legitimate business practice, the CMA will act on the basis of this price information in a way that could be seen as a restriction on retailers` freedom to set their own resale prices. Suppliers and retailers who have participated in RPM should therefore consider filing a leniency application with the CMA in order to obtain immunity from fines and personal sanctions before being charged by the other party concerned. Both Roland and Korg used price monitoring software that made it easier for them to control prices in real time and ensure compliance by their retailers. In addition, both suppliers were also aware that their conduct was contrary to competition law and that they had taken steps to hide what they were doing, but with its IT tools, the CMA nevertheless discovered emails and messages from computer servers and mobile phones. Both companies acknowledged the infringement in the context of the CMA`s settlement procedure, which resulted in a 20% reduction in the fine. This important enforcement action sends a clear message that the CMA takes RPM seriously and focuses on combating online sales practices that order retailers to maintain higher resale prices for their suppliers` branded products.
Except in very exceptional cases, third-party distributors outside a producer`s group of undertakings must be free to make prices as they see fit and any price controls, direct or indirect, that manufacturers impose on retailers are considered a monstrous breach of competition law, which may be punishable by potentially large fines and possibly even disqualification of directors. July 17, 2020 – CMA formally makes its infringement decision to a retailer and manufacturer as a result of the above comparison. The CMA also fined RPM for the first time on a retailer who agreed to implement the agreement, even though he had previously received a warning letter from the CMA stating that there was evidence that there was evidence that he could participate in RPM. Although, in the case of RPM retailers, the parties to the anti-competitive agreement are parties to the anti-competitive agreement, the CMA has so far only imposed fines on suppliers that are based on their imposing restrictions on retailers. In its open letter to the musical instrument industry, the CMA draws the attention of retailers to the fact that, if they agree to sell at fixed or minimum prices, they may be in breach of competition law. . . .