COMCO has fined 16 retailers a total of CHF 28 million for unauthorised price fixing. The focus is on the purchasing alliance via Markant. What does this mean for the practice of purchasing alliances?
Introduction
On 8 July 2025, the Competition Commission (COMCO) published its decision regarding the purchasing cooperation via Markant Handels- und Industriewaren-Vermittlungs AG. The focus was on the negotiations of service conditions and discounts between Markant, 16 retailers and their suppliers. While COMCO considered the collective negotiation of discounts to be permissible, non-transparent rebates and collective enforcement measures were qualified as unauthorised purchasing-side price agreements.
For a better understanding, a distinction must be made between permissible purchasing cooperations and unauthorised price agreements:
Permissible purchasing co-operations
Purchasing co-operations enable small and medium-sized enterprises (retailers) to achieve better purchasing conditions by pooling demand and thus strengthen their competitiveness. COMCO recognises this function in principle and sees the collective negotiation of discounts as a legitimate means of creating countervailing power vis-à-vis suppliers. Such co-operations can lead to lower purchase prices, which are ultimately passed on to consumers and thus benefit them.
Unauthorised price agreements
However, it becomes problematic when purchasing cooperatives abuse their market power. In this case, suppliers had to purchase a bundle of services from Markant in order to be able to supply the retailers. These services became continuously more expensive. When the retailers refused to accept the increased conditions, they took collective measures, including the discontinuation of products. In addition, parts of the service conditions were paid out to the retailers as reimbursements without making this transparent to the suppliers. COMCO deemed these practices to be unauthorised price agreements on the purchasing side that distorted competition between suppliers.
Legal assessment
Pursuant to Art. 5 of the Federal Act on Cartels and other Restraints of Competition (Cartel Act, Cartel Act), agreements between companies are illegal if they cause a significant impairment of competition and are not justified by reasons of economic efficiency. In the present case, COMCO considered the non-transparent reimbursements and the collective enforcement measures to be such an illegal agreement.
COMCO imposed clear conditions on Markant and the affiliated retailers in order to prevent unauthorised distortions of competition in the future. Firstly, the supply of retailers may not be made dependent on suppliers purchasing chargeable services from Markant. In addition, Markant and the retailers are prohibited from jointly exerting pressure on suppliers in order to enforce certain service conditions. Finally, retailers may not receive any reimbursements from Markant if these are financed from the suppliers’ fees and have not been transparently disclosed to them. The aim of these requirements is to ensure fair market conditions and transparency in the relationship between Markant, the retailers and the suppliers.
The sanction imposed by COMCO on the retailers involved totalling around CHF 28 million is based on the seriousness of the offence and the purchasing volume handled by “Markant”. Markant has already announced that it will appeal COMCO’s decision to the Federal Administrative Court.
Practical implications and recommendations
Companies that are part of purchasing co-operations or are planning to set up such co-operations should learn important lessons from the current COMCO decision. Transparency is of central importance: all financial flows within the co-operation, in particular reimbursements, must be openly communicated to the suppliers involved. Non-transparent payments undermine trust and can be categorised as distorting competition under antitrust law.
Another key principle is voluntariness. Suppliers must not be forced by structural constraints or de facto coercion to purchase certain fee-based services in order to gain access to relevant sales channels. Access to the market must remain possible regardless of the utilisation of additional services.
In addition, collective sanctions must be strictly avoided. Practices such as the coordinated delisting of products as a means of exerting pressure on non-cooperative suppliers are incompatible with antitrust law and can be qualified as unauthorised enforcement measures. Purchasing cooperatives must not abuse their market power to discipline business partners.
Finally, it is advisable to regularly subject all contractual arrangements and internal practices to a legal review. This is the only way to ensure that the co-operation complies with antitrust law and that no sanctions are at risk. This includes both the design of service contracts and the management of internal coordination and behaviour within the cooperation. The legally compliant operation of purchasing cooperations is therefore not only a question of efficiency, but also of legal integrity.
Conclusion and outlook
COMCO’s decision sets clear limits for the behaviour of purchasing cooperatives. While the collective negotiation of discounts is still permitted, non-transparent rebates and collective enforcement measures are considered illegal. Companies should adapt their purchasing practices accordingly in order to avoid antitrust risks. It remains to be seen how the Federal Administrative Court will rule in any appeal proceedings.
Sources