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).
Leegin and the Rule of Reason Analysis
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.
Drafting an Enforceable MAP Policy
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.
MAP Policy Enforcement in E-Commerce
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.
Selective Distribution and Authorized Reseller Programs
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.
Why Work with Revision Legal?
Revision Legal is an internet and intellectual property law firm. We represent startups, artists, e-commerce sellers, and established companies across the United States and around the world in trademark, copyright, trade secret, privacy, and internet law matters. That work is our entire practice, not a side line.
Our attorneys have litigated in federal courts from coast to coast, before the World Intellectual Property Organization, and in international arbitration. We have taken on overseas counterfeiting networks, domain name thieves, and some of the largest companies in the world on behalf of our clients. We also handle the day-to-day work that keeps a business protected: trademark clearance and registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and licensing agreements.
We answer the phone, tell clients the truth about their cases, and treat legal fees as a business decision. Most of our work is handled entirely remotely, so where you are located matters far less than what you need protected. Contact us at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.
