On Tuesday, October 14, 2025, the European Commission delivered a thunderous message to the luxury fashion world, slapping Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe with fines totaling more than €157 million (nearly $183 million USD) for breaching Europe’s strict competition rules. The ruling, which follows a sweeping investigation into the industry’s pricing practices, marks one of the most significant antitrust crackdowns in the high-end retail sector in recent years.
The Commission’s investigation, which began with surprise raids on the companies’ headquarters in April 2023 and was formalized in July 2024, uncovered a pattern of behavior that regulators say artificially inflated prices and stifled consumer choice. According to the Commission’s findings, the three iconic labels—each a pillar in the global luxury market—systematically restricted the ability of independent retailers to set their own prices for coveted goods, including apparel, leather goods, footwear, and accessories. The brands imposed minimum prices, capped discounts, and dictated the timing of sales, both online and in brick-and-mortar stores.
“This decision sends a strong signal to the fashion industry and beyond that we will not tolerate this kind of practice in Europe, and that fair competition and consumer protection apply to everyone, equally,” declared European Commissioner for Competition Teresa Ribera in her statement announcing the fines. She added, “In Europe, all consumers, whatever they buy, and wherever they buy it, online or offline, deserve the benefits of genuine price competition.”
Gucci, owned by the French luxury conglomerate Kering, received the largest penalty: €119.7 million. The fine reflects both the scale of Gucci’s operations and the duration of its violations, which spanned from April 2015 to April 2023. Chloé, under Swiss holding company Richemont, was fined €19.7 million for breaches between December 2019 and April 2023. Loewe, part of the French giant LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE, was ordered to pay €18 million for infringements occurring from December 2015 to April 2023.
The Commission noted that the fines for all three companies were reduced in recognition of their cooperation during the investigation. Gucci’s fine was halved when the brand provided additional information about the breadth of the breaches. Loewe’s penalty was also cut by 50%, and Chloé’s was reduced by 15%. The brands’ willingness to collaborate allowed for a swifter resolution, according to the Commission.
The antitrust watchdog’s probe revealed that the brands didn’t just recommend retail prices—they enforced them. Retailers were told not to deviate from these prices, forbidden from offering deeper discounts, and required to adhere to specific sales periods set by the brands. In some cases, discounts were outright banned, and the companies actively monitored compliance, pressuring those who dared to break ranks. The result: a price floor that kept luxury goods expensive and competition among retailers artificially low.
“The three fashion companies interfered with their retailers’ commercial strategies by imposing restrictions on them, such as requiring them to not deviate from recommended retail prices; maximum discounts rates; and specific periods for sales,” the Commission said in its official statement. This behavior, the Commission concluded, “deprived the retailers of their pricing independence and reduced competition between them.”
For consumers, the impact was clear: higher prices and fewer choices. The Commission emphasized that these practices were not limited to a handful of products, but affected nearly the entire range of each brand’s offerings. Whether shoppers browsed for a pair of Chloé boots or a Loewe bag, the price tags were set not by the retailer, but by the brand itself.
Gucci’s parent company, Kering, responded promptly to the decision, acknowledging that the fine related to “past commercial practices at Gucci.” The company stated that the risk had been “fully provisioned in the first-half 2025 financial statements, and the exposure is entirely covered.” Kering’s shares dipped 1.6% in Paris trading following the announcement, reflecting the financial weight—and reputational sting—of the penalty.
Chloé and Loewe also issued statements reaffirming their commitment to compliance with competition law. “We take this matter extremely seriously and acted with the utmost diligence to address it,” Chloé said. Loewe echoed this sentiment, stating it “reiterates its firm commitment to acting in strict compliance with competition law.” Richemont and LVMH, the parent companies of Chloé and Loewe respectively, did not offer further comment on the Commission’s decision.
The European Commission made it clear that the three companies acted independently of each other, rather than as a cartel. Still, the coordinated effect of their policies across the market led to a less dynamic retail environment for luxury goods. The Commission’s penalties, announced after a year-long formal investigation, are the latest in a series of moves by Brussels to rein in restrictive business agreements in the fashion industry. The EU’s antitrust division has a long history of targeting cartels and anti-competitive behavior among luxury brands, which have often argued that strict pricing helps maintain their prestige and exclusivity. However, regulators have consistently held that such arguments do not justify undermining competition or harming consumers.
The fallout from the fines extends beyond the immediate financial hit. The luxury sector, already facing scrutiny over supply chain practices and data protection, is now under even closer observation. Italian authorities, for instance, have been pressuring major labels—including Armani, Dior, Loro Piana, and Tod’s—over worker exploitation in their supply chains. Meanwhile, new concerns about breaches of client data privacy are adding to the regulatory headaches for high-end fashion houses.
For now, the message from Brussels is unmistakable: no matter how storied the brand or exclusive the product, the rules of fair competition apply. As the dust settles, the luxury sector is left to reckon with the consequences—and perhaps, to reconsider the balance between prestige and price freedom in a rapidly evolving retail landscape.
