The Italian Antitrust Authority issues its first ever fine for online retail price maintenance and clarifies the contours of illegal online marketplace bans

On 17 March 2026, the Italian Antitrust Authority (IAA) imposed a record fine of over €25 million on Morellato S.p.A. (Morellato), a leading operator in the mid-range jewellery and watch market in Italy, for resale price maintenance (RPM) and online marketplace bans clauses in distribution contracts. This decision confirms the IAA’s growing attention to vertical practices and sends a clear message: conducts impacting distributors’ autonomy and online sales will no longer be treated “softly”. 

Where it all started 

The IAA’s investigation was triggered by an anonymous complaint via the whistleblowing platform. This tool is proving increasingly effective for launching investigations--over the last few years, over 200 complaints were presented through the platform and 4 out of 8 cartel investigations in Italy were triggered this way in 2024. The whistleblower revealed that Morellato prohibited its distributors from reselling its branded products on any online marketplace, whilst at the same time Morellato was using the same online marketplaces either directly or via intermediary platforms’ operators in their capacity as distributors. The investigation was subsequently extended to cover potential conducts involving the fixing of retail distributors’ resale prices.

The IAA decision – Who’s selling online?

Based on the analysis of the relevant distribution contracts, extensive correspondence and internal documentation gathered during dawn raids, the IAA ultimately found that Morellato:

• included, in its selective distribution system contracts, a clause prohibiting the resale of Morellato products on any online marketplace and third-party websites. This prohibition was applied in a discriminatory manner, given that Morellato continued to use such channels, in some cases even allowing certain online marketplace operators to do so as actual distributors;
• adopted an ‘Internet Policy’, which prohibited distributors from applying discounts higher than certain thresholds for their online sales (which is considered equivalent to the imposition of minimum resale prices); and
• used software specifically designed to closely monitor the prices applied by its distributors online and detect any violation of the Internet Policy, so as to issue ‘warnings’ and, in case of persistent deviations, adopt retaliatory measures such as blocking supplies or threatening contract termination.

In the IAA’s view, such conducts constituted a vertical agreement in breach of Article 101 TFEU. The RPM conduct was considered a hardcore restriction within the meaning of Article 4(a) of EU Vertical Block Exemption Regulation No 720/2022 (VBER).

Morellato’s defences aimed at arguing that the conduct was intended to prevent counterfeiting did not succeed. First, the IAA found that there was no evidence that Morellato monitored the actual quality and/or type of the products being sold online, rather only checking their retail price and whether the distributors complied with the Internet Policy. Second, the monitoring activities were not limited to identifying ‘abnormal discounts’ potentially indicative of counterfeiting, but only to verify compliance with the Internet Policy. Lastly, in the IAA’s view, less restrictive alternatives existed, such as using serial numbers to monitor/verify product authenticity.

Similarly, the s.c. online marketplace ban was deemed a vertical restriction of competition. While the IAA acknowledged that it is possible, pursuant to the case law in Case C‑230/16 -Coty and under specific circumstances, and in particular for selective distribution systems, to impose certain restrictions on the use of online marketplaces, the same IAA concluded that these conditions were not met in this case. In fact, the online marketplace ban was applied in a discriminatory manner and, as such, it was not justifiable under the Coty case law. As it was deemed capable of restricting intra-brand competition, this was sufficient to constitute a breach of Article 101(1) TFEU. Furthermore, rather than efficiency objectives aimed at preserving the quality and correct use of the products, in the IAA’s view, evidence in the case file showed that Morellato’s sole intention was to control its distributors’ commercial policy. The conduct was therefore considered not justifiable even under Article 101(3) TFEU, as the restriction was not deemed proportionate and necessary.

What are the implications going forward?

This case marks a “game changer” in the IAA’s enforcement against RPM practices or marketplace bans, with a focus on online distribution. In particular, this is a first-of-its-kind fine for similar RPM conducts, whereby the IAA’s previous investigations were closed with commitments. This comes in the wake of the IAA’s growing focus on restrictive practices in vertical relationships, with three other ongoing investigations – two in the market for watches and one in the market for drones – and is consistent with the wider recent trend at EU level (e.g. the over 100mn EUR fine by the EC on three fashion houses for RPM). Similar trends may not be slowing down. 

Companies should be aware of the importance of ensuring distributors’ freedom to set retail prices autonomously, in particular as far as their online sales are concerned, and to rely on online marketplaces, without being subject to contractual limitations or even commercial pressure from their suppliers. Periodically reviewing contractual arrangements with distributors, developing clear pro-competitive, efficiency justifications and ensuring that similar conducts are covered in compliance training programs remain key to avoid unintended pitfalls.