trongnguyen/Depositphotos.com
July 29, 2025
Are MAP Policies Bad for Consumers?
A Pennsylvania resident has sued a number of archery sellers, charging their use to minimum advertised pricing (MAP) policies amounts to price fixing.
MAP polices are unilateral agreements that prevent retailers from advertising a product below a specific price. They are designed to maintain pricing consistency across different retailers, support brand perception, and prevent price erosion.
ChannelSight, a maker of e-commerce personalization software, wrote in a blog entry, “A MAP policy is used to ensure an even playing field amongst retailers that want to drive margin or volume whilst ensuring that the brand’s product is not devalued by a constant price-war.”
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah argues that the Archery Trade Association (ATA) conspired with numerous manufacturers, distributors and retailers, including Bass Pro and Dick’s Sporting Goods, to “to fix the prices of — and eliminate price discounting and competition for — archery products.”
The case argues that price competition among retailers is seen as an “existential threat” to the industry and claims that the ATA repeatedly pushed its members to jointly enforce MAP policies industry-wide, including encouraging dealers not to work with vendors who violate MAP policies.
The suit contends that the alleged agreement between the ATA and its members, as well as their coordinated enforcement of MAP policies, violates federal and state antitrust laws.
Court documents state, “First, by eliminating the ability of competing retailers to attract customers by publicly advertising lower retail prices, MAPs reduce retailers’ incentives to compete on price because those lower prices do not entice incremental business to shop at the retailer. Second, whatever limited incentives to offer discounts on retail prices remain after MAPs are adopted, MAPs set an artificially high retail price from which price negotiations are initiated, ensuring that actual transaction prices will be higher than would otherwise be the case.”
The lawsuit, seeking unspecified monetary damages and the end of such MAP actions, estimates there are hundreds of thousands of potential class members who have purchased relevant archery products since 2014.
MAP policies are seen as legal under U.S. federal antitrust law when implemented unilaterally by the manufacturer, or when a manufacturer informs a retailer of a MAP expectation but does not enter into agreements with them to fix prices. Tradevitality states, “This approach avoids violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits price-fixing agreements. As long as a MAP policy is not part of a mutual agreement with resellers, it is generally lawful.”
MAP polices can be challenging to enforce by manufacturers, particularly on online marketplaces, and retailers can become vexed staying up-to-date on MAP changes and wanting more flexibility to discount slow sellers. However, they’re generally seen as beneficial to consumers by increasing trust in pricing.
Discussion Questions
Do MAP (minimum advertised pricing) policies offer more benefits than drawbacks for consumers? What’s your overall take on the value of MAP policies for brands and retailers?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Tom Ryan
Managing Editor, RetailWire
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
Which Tech Will Solve In-Store Inventory Woes?
Three major tech lineups are looking to solve retail inventory problems. Which is most suited?Will Ford’s New Retail Experience Deliver Results?
Ford is revamping its global dealership model, in terms of physical space and other aspects. Will…Will Target’s Rebalancing Act Solve its ‘Sloppier’ Stores Problem?
Target is making an operational move to take fulfillment duties away from certain stores. Will this…
This is, – to say the least ! – confusing: if the MAP is voluntary, and only among some retailers, it’s hard to see how it can be very effective. Also, the suit seems to touch upon long-settled law, so I’m relucatant to offer up an opinion on the legal merits of the suit. Instead I’ll concentrate on the concept of MAPs; the thinking behind them, and, indeeed the tendency of them, is to force retailers to compete on things other than price. Obviously that can be a challenge, particularly in today’s price-focused world, but it’s certainly not without benefit, both to sellers and buyers.
I am making a good salary from home $1400-$2400/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
.
Here is what I do…… https://rb.gy/y4j09o
This is a set of entangled trade-offs with no obvious answer to fully satisfy consumers, retailers, and manufacturers. MAP pricing is effective for brands to protect product value perception. And it evens out the sales field on price for retailers and online companies, assuming a shady and organized distribution work-around isn’t active. Since retailers can’t compete on price, they must only use product benefits or features, and store convenience. It does limit consumer choice.
As someone who spent the majority of my career within the Consumer Electronics industry, and a category where MAP pricing was rampant, I can assure you that it was never about the consumer. MAP Pricing policies were enacted to protect the brand from being excessively discounted and thus perceived as being of lesser value. It also preserved profitability for retailers who could remain competitive while selling the product at full margin.
Legally, it was stated as voluntary so as not to run afoul of price-fixing regulations. I can assure you that on many occasions, I sold products below MAP Pricing as the retail format I was operating in did not regularly advertise. The “A” in “MAP” stands for “advertised” pricing, and thus, a retailer could sell a product below that price, but could not advertise it below that price and expect to receive advertising funds from the brand supplier.
All told, MAP Pricing has never been about the consumer; it has always been about the retailer.
Quote from piece: “price competition among retailers is seen as an “existential threat”
1) Points to capitalism as bad. (just tell that to concert ticket sellers or travel. 100% opposite)
2) To consumers, very much looks like price fixing collusion. (Item or brand is always excluded from sale days. Price is same to the penny.)
3) Flatlines consumer shopping, when retailers have little to offer of valued differentiation. (Less temptation to buy. Just wait for it to collectively price decrease.)
4) The hard stance tries to correct many years! of retail industry training consumers to look for sale/discount (even if marked up to be marked down).
5) Does it have any effect on the flipping market? a sign of holding value?
Let’s be honest about who MAP policies serve (not the consumer) and ensure they don’t become vehicles for industry-wide price coordination masquerading as brand protection. MAP policies should exist, but with guardrails that address new digital capabilities. Manufacturers should be allowed to enforce MAP unilaterally to protect brand equity. Still, the moment industry associations coordinate MAP strategies or retailers face retaliation for non-participation, we’ve entered antitrust violation territory.
MAP was never meant to protect consumers. The purpose was to keep competitors from lowballing prices that angered competitors – who then complained to the brand managers. Who, today, say they can’t do much about it. Brand sanctity is long gone for most mass brands.
MAP, to retailers, means ‘MARGINS-A-PLENTY.’ The concept will be gone in two years.
As a society we have come to obsess about low prices. But the markets which have the most vitality are the ones from which consumers benefit most. That means markets where prices are well above rock bottom. In my experience, it’s the savviest manufacturers relying on MAP AND it nets out to be a service to their consumers. Note that good margins are critical if a company is to continue to innovate in ways which benefit the consumer. There is no inherent value in low prices other than Sergio Zyman’s observation — that in the absence of meaning customers fall back on price. If more manufacturers ensured their products had meaning, retailers would benefit from higher prices and customers would discover new products which enhance their lives.
I have been in Retail since the Mid-80s and MAP pricing was one of the first things i learned about. It was drilled into my head that with certain designer clothing brands. the department store was never allowed to have them on sale or we were told that we would loose our access to the designer brands product line. For the retailer having the higher end designer brands attracted a consumer mix that included more affluent consumers. So basically the designers hold the retailers hostage. If the retailer wants the very recognizable customer segment, and their share of wallet, the better not sell below X dollars and should exclude the product from promotions of any type…….Bottom line 79% about the manufacture, 20% about the retailer, 1% about the consumer
“MAP polices are unilateral agreements that prevent retailers from advertising a product below a specific price. They are designed to maintain pricing consistency across different retailers, support brand perception, and prevent price erosion. ” Sounds like price fixing to me.
MAP offers virtually no benefit to the consumer. It does allow price integrity on premium products to be maintained, which may help secure their exclusivity. If applied universally, it also means the consumer doesn’t have to spend time comparing prices between retailers. However, these two things are very minor. The big disadvantage is that it discourages competition. While there are existing laws around MAP, I do not see them as necessary. Setting prices is a matter for the supplier and retailer to determine.
Not all products are sold because of the brand; some are bought mainly for the price. If retailers can’t adjust prices, they lose control, and customers miss out on better deals.
This becomes a bigger issue with local competition or slow-selling items. MAP rules can help, but they shouldn’t apply the same way to every product. Pricing should be flexible to support both retailers and customers.