The Supreme Administrative Court imposed a penalty payment of EUR 1.75 million on Isojoen Konehalli for resale price maintenance in electronic commerce

The Supreme Administrative Court found Isojoen Konehalli Oy (IKH) engaged in prohibited resale price maintenance (RPM) by imposing minimum resale prices for IKH products in online shops of certain dealers and by agreeing with its authorised dealers on the fixed resale price in the IKH online shop. The Supreme Administrative Court assessed that the infringement had been prolonged, serious and reprehensible and had caused concrete adverse effects on the retail market price level. 

In May 2020, the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) proposed to the Market Court that a penalty payment of EUR 9 million be imposed on the importing and hardware store company IKH for prohibited resale price maintenance. The FCCA’s findings indicated that IKH set recommended prices for its products and coerced its resellers in different ways to comply with them. The FCCA considered that the RPM concerned the sale of IKH products in retailers’ online shops and brick-and-mortar stores.

In August 2022, the Market Court imposed a penalty payment of EUR 1.75 million on IKH for prohibited resale price maintenance. The Market Court considered that IKH, in breach of competition rules, determined retail prices for its retailers in their online shops from March 2010 to February 2015. In addition, IKH had agreed with its authorised retailers on the fixed resale price to be applied on the chain’s joint online shop from 2014 to 2020, when the FCCA prohibited the procedure. The FCCA and IKH appealed the Market Court’s decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court held that IKH imposed retail prices for its products in the joint online store of its authorised dealers and, for some dealers, also in their own online stores. Contrary to the Market Court’s ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that it was not proven that resale price maintenance had been agreed upon with all retailers selling IKH products online. However, the Supreme Administrative Court did not reduce the penalty payment imposed on IKH. In the assessment, the Supreme Administrative Court took into account the seriousness, reprehensibility and long-term nature of the infringement and the fact that the penalty payment of EUR 1.75 million was relatively low in relation to the company’s total turnover.