Internet Minimum Advertised Price Policy (IMAP or MAP) refers to a policy that sets the minimum advertised price of a manufacturer’s goods. Because of the ease of online distribution, policing the actions of every online retailer can be difficult. An IMAP sets the standard for all retailers to follow.
Some manufacturers wish to implement an IMAP to ensure that the quality of their products matches the price. For example, a high-end power tool company may not want its products grouped together with products of a lesser quality, and lesser price. By setting a higher minimum advertised price, the manufacturer can retain its unique space in a crowded market.
In general, antitrust laws exist to prevent collusion in the market place, including what is typically referred to as price fixing. However, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the validity of IMAPs.
This Supreme Court ruling, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc v PSKS, Inc, 551 US 877 (2007), ruled that IMAPs are not per se invalid under antitrust law, but instead, should be analyzed under the rule of reason. The “rule of reason” is a theory in antitrust law that, in general, judges a monopoly or restraint by reviewing the factual setting behind the restraint. As a result, IMAPs can be fact specific (including industry, product, or service) and should be drafted by experienced e-commerce attorneys.
There is one major distinction to be made. IMAPs cannot require the retailer to sell the product at a certain price. Instead, IMAPs can require the retailer to advertise the product no lower than a certain minimum price. Although retailers may be able to sell the product at a lower price by requiring the consumer take some action (call, email, add to cart, etc).
Before Leegin, resale price maintenance agreements — including MAP policies — were treated as per se illegal under the Sherman Act based on the 1911 decision in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911). The Supreme Court overruled that 96-year-old precedent in Leegin, holding that vertical price restraints should be evaluated under the rule of reason rather than condemned automatically.
Under the rule of reason, courts assess whether a MAP policy has anticompetitive effects that are not outweighed by its procompetitive benefits. Procompetitive justifications include preventing free-riding (where discounting retailers benefit from the pre-sale services and brand investment of full-price retailers without bearing those costs), maintaining a premium brand image, and ensuring that retailers invest in customer service and product expertise. If the policy promotes competition rather than suppressing it, courts are more likely to uphold it.
A well-drafted MAP policy should: (1) be implemented unilaterally, without agreement from retailers — the Sherman Act prohibits horizontal price-fixing agreements among competitors, and even a vertical MAP policy can create antitrust risk if it appears to have been adopted at the urging of a distributor or retailer; (2) clearly define what constitutes an “advertised price” subject to the policy, including which platforms and promotional channels are covered; (3) specify the manufacturer’s right to terminate a retailer’s authorization to sell the product for MAP violations; and (4) provide a clear process for monitoring compliance and reporting violations.
Enforcing a MAP policy in the online marketplace is challenging. Unauthorized third-party sellers on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, and similar platforms can undercut authorized retailers without any contractual relationship with the manufacturer. Addressing these violations requires a combination of legal tools — including trademark enforcement against unauthorized resellers, selective distribution agreements with authorized retailers, and anti-counterfeiting measures — as well as active monitoring of marketplace listings.
Revision Legal’s e-commerce attorneys advise manufacturers on designing MAP policies that are legally sound, practically enforceable, and effective at protecting brand equity in multi-channel distribution environments. For retailers who have received MAP enforcement demands, we evaluate the legal basis of the demand and advise on compliance obligations and dispute resolution.
If your e-commerce business has received an IMAP and has questions, or if you are a manufacturer wishing to implement an IMAP, contact our e-commerce attorneys at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
For manufacturers concerned about both MAP compliance and unauthorized resellers on online marketplaces, a selective distribution program — limiting sales to authorized dealers who agree to the manufacturer’s policies — provides a more comprehensive approach to brand control than a MAP policy alone. Authorized reseller agreements can require compliance with MAP policies, minimum service standards, advertising guidelines, and product presentation requirements. They can also provide contractual grounds for terminating a reseller who violates these requirements, and in some cases they can support marketplace enforcement actions against unauthorized sellers.
Selective distribution programs raise their own antitrust considerations. Under U.S. antitrust law, limiting distribution to authorized dealers is generally permissible if the restrictions are imposed unilaterally by the manufacturer and serve legitimate procompetitive purposes. Combining a selective distribution program with a MAP policy, tracking compliance, and enforcing consistently — without coordination with competitors — provides a legally defensible framework for brand protection. Revision Legal’s e-commerce attorneys design these programs to be legally sound and practically enforceable.
If your e-commerce business has questions about MAP policies or authorized reseller programs, contact our e-commerce attorneys at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Revision Legal is a national intellectual property and internet law firm that represents clients across the United States in trademark, copyright, trade secret, and internet law matters. We are a firm of specialists — not general practitioners who handle IP work as one component of a broad practice, but attorneys whose entire professional focus is on the intersection of technology, creativity, and commerce.
Our attorneys have handled cases at every level of the federal court system, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We manage trademark portfolios for hundreds of clients, ranging from individual entrepreneurs registering their first mark to publicly traded companies maintaining global trademark portfolios across dozens of countries.
We believe that access to expert legal counsel should not depend on the size of your organization. Revision Legal’s flat-fee service model for routine IP matters — trademark registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and standard licensing agreements — allows small businesses, startups, and individual creators to access the same quality of legal representation that larger companies receive, at a price that is predictable and fair. For complex litigation and contested proceedings, we work efficiently to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients while managing costs responsibly.
Whatever your intellectual property or internet law need — whether you are protecting a new brand, enforcing your rights against an infringer, defending against a legal demand, or navigating a complex licensing transaction — Revision Legal has the expertise to help. Contact us today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.
Revision Legal’s attorneys bring deep subject matter expertise and practical experience to every engagement. We have helped hundreds of Michigan and national clients protect and enforce their intellectual property rights, navigate complex internet law issues, and build legal frameworks that support long-term business success. Our flat-fee service model for standard IP matters ensures that you know exactly what representation costs before we begin, with no hourly surprises. For complex litigation and contested proceedings, we bring the same focus on efficiency and client value that defines our practice across all service areas.
We also understand that legal issues in intellectual property and internet law often require speed. An infringing product launch cannot wait for a drawn-out legal process. A DMCA notice that takes three weeks to draft and send provides much weaker protection than one sent promptly and properly. Revision Legal’s attorneys are accessible and responsive — when you have an urgent IP or internet law issue, we are ready to move quickly on your behalf.
Whether you are a Michigan startup protecting a new brand, an established company dealing with an infringement problem, or an individual facing a legal demand, Revision Legal has the expertise and the commitment to help you achieve the best possible outcome. Contact us at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form today.
Learn what counts as deceptive pricing in e-commerce, including false discounts, hidden fees, drip pricing, and fake urgency. Revision Legal’s internet law attorneys help online retailers stay compliant with FTC rules.
Read more about What Counts as Deceptive Pricing in E-Commerce?
Amazon Brand Registry gives trademark owners tools to protect their brands and remove counterfeit listings. Here’s how to enroll, what protection it offers, and its limits.
Read more about Amazon Brand Registry for E-Commerce Sellers
E-commerce sellers face constant threats to their intellectual property. Here’s how to protect your brand, product designs, and content across online marketplaces and your store.
Read more about IP Protection for E-Commerce Shops