White Paper: Navigating MAP Policy Compliance Without Crossing the Line
June 2025 – MAP Services Corp. Newsletter Edition
Executive Summary
Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policies help manufacturers protect brand value and ensure retailers compete on service rather than price alone. However, when retailers, manufacturers, associations, or distributors coordinate too closely around MAP, they risk running afoul of antitrust laws. This white paper explains why even well‐intentioned collaboration can be legally dangerous, highlights a recent lawsuit that underscores these risks, and offers practical, easy-to-implement guidance for MAP compliance—while assuring you that MAP Services Corp. remains fully compliant with applicable laws.
1. What Is MAP and Why It Matters
- Definition: A MAP policy sets the lowest price at which a product may be advertised, not necessarily the price at which it must be sold. Carried out properly, MAP gives manufacturers control over how their products appear on retailer websites (e.g., preventing “race-to-the-bottom” discounting that can harm brand prestige).
- Purpose:
- Protects Brand Equity: Ensures all retailers maintain a consistent advertised price, so the brand isn’t devalued by extreme discounting.
- Encourages Service-Based Competition: Retailers compete on customer service, fulfillment speed, and other value-added services rather than undercutting each other’s price tags.
Key Point: A lawful MAP policy is set unilaterally by a manufacturer (or brand owner) and enforced directly by that manufacturer. It must be conveyed to each retailer separately—without joint discussions or agreements with other manufacturers, retailers, or trade groups about setting or policing those price floors.
2. The Thin Line Between Permissible MAP and Unlawful Collusion
2.1 Permissible (Unilateral) MAP Enforcement
- Unilateral Action: A manufacturer can say, “We ask (but don’t require) that you advertise our X-Model TV at no less than $499.”
- Manufacturer‐to‐Retailer: Every brand owner independently decides its own MAP. If Brand A wants a $499 floor, and Brand B wants a $299 floor, each communicates that directly to its retailers, without any coordination between Brand A and Brand B.
- Retailer Discretion: Retailers remain free to set their own sale prices (e.g., in their shopping cart or at checkout), as long as the advertised price stays at or above MAP.
2.2 Unlawful Collusion (Horizontal/Vertical Price-Fixing)
- Joint Agreements Among Manufacturers: If two or more competing manufacturers agree (even informally) to set the same MAP. Example: Brand A and Brand B meet at a trade event and agree, “Let’s both set $499 as the MAP for our flagship electronics so nobody can cut into margins.”
- Trade Association Involvement: When a trade group (e.g., Archery Trade Association) drafts a uniform MAP schedule that all member manufacturers must adopt and enforce together, that crosses into horizontal price-fixing territory.
- Retailer “Policing” Each Other: Retailers who agree to report one another to manufacturers for advertising below a jointly agreed-upon MAP rate can also run into trouble.
Why It’s Dangerous: Antitrust laws (primarily Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1) prohibit agreements that restrain trade. Even if everyone “means well,” a coordinated MAP scheme can be treated as a per se unlawful price-fixing conspiracy—resulting in treble damages (three times the actual overcharge), hefty legal bills, and potential reputational harm.
3. Case Study: Santarlas v. Bowtech (June 2025)
On June 2, 2025, a proposed class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Joseph Santarlas v. Bowtech Inc. et al, No. 2:25-cv-00436-DAK). The suit names Bass Pro Shops (and its affiliate Cabela’s), Dick’s Sporting Goods, several bow and arrow manufacturers, distributors, and the Archery Trade Association (ATA), alleging a decade-long MAP price-fixing conspiracy in the archery and bowhunting market. The key allegations are:
- ATA’s Role (2014–2025):
- The ATA drafted “industry-wide” MAP guidelines for bows, arrows, arrowheads, and targets.
- Member manufacturers (e.g., Bowtech, Diamond Archery) implemented and enforced those MAP thresholds in lockstep, rather than independently.
- Manufacturer–Retailer Coordination:
- Major retailers (e.g., Bass Pro Shops/Cabela’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods) reported lower-priced offers by smaller competitors to manufacturers.
- Manufacturers then threatened to cut off or delay shipments to any retailer that advertised below the ATA’s MAP.
- Alleged Impact on Consumers:
- Plaintiffs claim hundreds of thousands of archery customers were overcharged—missing out on the lower competitive prices that would have existed absent collusion.
- They seek treble damages (three times the amount those consumers reportedly overpaid) and injunctions to stop the MAP enforcement scheme.
Read the full Reuters summary here:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/retailer-bass-pro-cabelas-hit-with-price-fixing-class-action-2025-06-02/
Lawsuit Docket (PACER):
Santarlas v. Bowtech Inc. et al, No. 2:25-cv-00436-DAK (D. Utah)
The takeaway for MAP clients is clear: even if a policy seems like “just good brand management,” if multiple manufacturers or retailers coordinate on those price floors—especially through a trade group—you may be part of an unlawful price-fixing conspiracy.
4. Understanding the Legal Framework
4.1 Sherman Act, Section 1 (15 U.S.C. § 1)
- Overview: Prohibits “every contract, combination … or conspiracy, in restraint of trade.”
- Per Se Illegality: Certain practices—like horizontal price-fixing—are deemed so harmful that they are automatically (per se) illegal, without any need to analyze intent or market impact. Coordinated MAP setting by competing manufacturers can fall under this category.
- Rule of Reason: If a practice isn’t per se illegal, a “rule of reason” analysis weighs procompetitive benefits (e.g., protecting brand reputation) against anticompetitive harm (e.g., higher prices for consumers). Even under this test, collusive MAP enforcement often fails.
4.2 Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS (2007)
- Key Principle: The Supreme Court held that manufacturer-imposed resale price maintenance (RPM) is to be judged under the “rule of reason” rather than automatically illegal.
- Takeaway: A manufacturer may set minimum resale prices unilaterally, but if multiple manufacturers act together (through a trade association or mutual meetings) to set the same minimum, that can still be unlawful—even post-Leegin.
4.3 Vertical vs. Horizontal Restraints
- Vertical Restraints: Between different levels of the supply chain (manufacturer → retailer). Unilateral MAP policies are between these levels and may be lawful under Leegin—so long as the manufacturer independently sets them.
- Horizontal Restraints: Agreements among competitors (manufacturer ↔ manufacturer or retailer ↔ retailer) to restrict pricing. These are per se illegal.
5. Best Practices for Lawful MAP Compliance
- Keep MAP Decisions Unilateral
- One Manufacturer, One Policy: If you represent Brand X, decide your MAP level internally (or with your legal team), then communicate it directly to your authorized retailers. Do not share or compare your MAP levels with Brand Y or any competing brand.
- Document Internal Approval: Keep written records (emails, board minutes) showing that only your brand approved your MAP policy on its own, without outside input from other manufacturers or associations.
- Avoid “Industry-Wide” or Association-Led MAP Consensus
- No Joint MAP Lists: Do not participate in an ATA-style committee that produces a single MAP schedule covering all member brands.
- No Discussions of Competitor Pricing: Even casual conversations—“What should our MAP be compared to Brand Z?”—can be construed as coordination. If you must discuss best practices, keep the discussion theoretical and avoid mentioning exact price points.
- Retailer Communication
- Direct from Manufacturer: When you notify retailers of your MAP, do so with a one-way communication (e.g., an email blast or portal notice) that states only your brand’s MAP.
- No “We All Agreed” Language: Avoid wording that implies collective agreement. Instead, use phrasing such as, “Brand X requests that you advertise Model A at no less than $499.”
- Independent Enforcement
- Manufacturer‐Only Enforcement: If a retailer advertises below MAP, send a notice or warning yourself—do not enlist or rely on other manufacturers, distributors, or trade associations to police or enforce your MAP policy.
- Allow Retailer Choice: Emphasize to each retailer that MAP is a condition for continued supply only if they choose to participate. Always allow them the possibility of opting out, even if that means you might restrict supply.
- Stay Informed and Periodically Audit
- Legal Review: Schedule an annual (or more frequent) review of your MAP policy and enforcement practices with your antitrust counsel.
- Internal Training: Ensure your marketing and sales teams understand the difference between permissible unilateral MAP practices and impermissible coordinated activities.
6. Why MAP Services Corp. Remains Fully Compliant
At MAP Services Corp., our guiding principle is to help brands enforce MAP policies without violating antitrust laws. Here’s how we ensure legal compliance:
- Unilateral Policy Design: We work with each manufacturer separately—never aggregating or sharing pricing floors across brands.
- Independent Monitoring Dashboards: Our platform aggregates advertised prices from publicly available sources (e.g., retailer websites). We never share one manufacturer’s MAP data with other manufacturers or with retailers in a way that would facilitate coordination.
- Legal Framework Alignment: Every alert, report, or notice generated through our system is vetted by our in-house legal team to ensure it arises solely from one manufacturer’s MAP policy. We do not facilitate multi-brand or multi-retailer MAP policing.
- Transparent Reporting: When a retailer falls below MAP, we notify only the brand owner—never other brands or industry associations. This avoids any appearance of joint enforcement.
Bottom Line: MAP Services Corp. operates strictly within the boundaries established by Leegin and Sherman Act jurisprudence. Our clients can rest assured that using our services will not expose them to collusion or price-fixing allegations.
7. Learning from Recent Developments
- Santarlas v. Bowtech: The archery industry example is a cautionary tale for any sector with MAP policies. Although the ATA and its members believed they were simply preserving brand integrity, their coordinated MAP scheme led to a class action seeking treble damages for alleged overcharges.
- E-Commerce Focus: As more retailers shift online, automated MAP monitoring tools become indispensable. But they must be structured so that each brand’s data stream and enforcement actions remain siloed to avoid horizontal “price-setting.”
- Distributor and Retailer Roles: If you’re a distributor or large retailer, avoid entering into any discussions with multiple brands about collectively enforcing MAP. Even if you think you’re just giving “industry feedback,” these conversations can later be characterized as participating in a conspiracy.
8. Action Steps for MAP Policy Success
- Review Your Current MAP Structure
- Are you setting your MAP unilaterally?
- Do your communications avoid referencing other manufacturers or trade association guidelines?
- Educate Your Partners
- Send a brief “MAP Compliance Memo” to all your retailers, emphasizing that your MAP policy comes solely from your brand and reminding them of the difference between advertised and sale prices.
- Offer a short workshop or webinar on “MAP Dos and Don’ts” that includes a plain-language overview of antitrust risks (without overwhelming them with legal jargon).
- Conduct a Quick Internal Audit
- Ensure no staff member is sharing or seeking competitor MAP information.
- Confirm that enforcement letters or notices are sent strictly from your legal/marketing department—all under the brand’s letterhead.
- Partner Safely with MAP Services Corp.
- Leverage our platform for automated enforcement alerts while resting easy that we structure everything on a “per-brand” basis.
- Contact our legal compliance team if you have any doubt about existing trade-association gatherings or retailer roundtables that involve MAP.
9. Conclusion
Maintaining a robust MAP policy is essential for protecting brand value and encouraging healthy competition on service and support rather than price. Yet, as recent litigation has shown, even well-meaning collaborations around MAP can spiral into antitrust exposure. MAP Services Corp. is committed to keeping your brand fully compliant—we never facilitate multi-brand MAP coordination, and every enforcement action we trigger is rooted in unilateral brand decisions. By following the guidelines above, you can preserve the benefits of MAP without risking costly legal challenges or damaged reputation.
Additional Resources:
For personalized guidance on your MAP strategy or questions about compliance, please reach out to our Legal Compliance Desk at compliance@mapservicescorp.com.
Disclaimer: This white paper is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult your antitrust counsel for advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
