Hoka Defeats Price-Fixing Ruling in UK Vertical Restraints Case with Implications for Distribution Agreement Structuring
The maker of Hoka running shoes has defeated a price-fixing ruling in UK Court of Appeal proceedings, in a case centred on vertical restraints (restrictions on how goods are sold through the distribution chain, as opposed to horizontal cartels between competitors). The Law360 report confirms the outcome but, as a paywalled article, limits detail on the specific legal basis and jurisdiction of the ruling. Vertical price-fixing cases — where a manufacturer attempts to control the resale prices charged by its retail distributors — sit at the intersection of competition law and commercial contracting in both the US and UK/EU contexts. In the EU, such arrangements are assessed under Article 101 TFEU (the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union's primary prohibition on anti-competitive agreements) and the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), which was significantly revised in 2022. In the UK, equivalent analysis proceeds under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 and the retained UK VBER framework, overseen by the CMA. A finding that a manufacturer's resale price maintenance or distribution restrictions are lawful — or unlawful — directly affects how legal teams draft distribution agreements across retail sectors. The outcome here will be studied by lawyers advising consumer brands on their UK and EU distribution networks, particularly in the premium sportswear and luxury goods segments where selective distribution systems are common.
Why this matters
Vertical restraints litigation is a live and recurring area of EU and UK competition law, particularly since the 2022 VBER revision tightened the analysis of selective distribution and online sales restrictions. A ruling on price-fixing in a distribution context — from the UK Court of Appeal — provides direct authority that UK competition lawyers will track, especially as the CMA has signalled increased scrutiny of retail pricing practices. The 'why now' trigger is the post-pandemic surge in direct-to-consumer brand strategies, which have created friction with traditional distribution models and generated a wave of vertical restraints disputes globally.
On the Ground
A trainee on a competition regulatory matter would assist with compliance gap analysis memos comparing a client's distribution agreement terms against the CMA's guidance on vertical agreements and the retained UK VBER framework. They would also help draft regulatory notification materials if a distribution arrangement requires notification or informal guidance from the CMA.
Interview prep
Soundbite
Post-2022 VBER reforms mean every premium brand's UK distribution agreement needs a fresh vertical restraints audit.
Question you might get
“Under the UK Competition Act 1998 and the retained Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, when would a manufacturer's attempt to set minimum resale prices for its products be unlawful, and what exemptions might apply?”
Full answer
The Hoka sneaker brand has defeated a price-fixing ruling in the UK Court of Appeal, in a case turning on whether vertical restraints in its distribution arrangements crossed the line into unlawful resale price maintenance. This matters for UK competition lawyers because equivalent analysis under the Competition Act 1998 and the retained UK Vertical Block Exemption Regulation is a live issue — particularly since the 2022 VBER revision tightened rules on selective distribution and online sales restrictions. The case connects to a broader trend of premium consumer brands restructuring distribution models post-pandemic, which has generated a surge in vertical restraints advisory and litigation work. My view is that the CMA's heightened focus on retail pricing practices means this type of case will become more common in the UK market over the next two to three years.
My notes
saved