The German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) has imposed fines totaling nearly €6 million on audio products manufacturers Sennheiser electronic SE & Co. KG (“Sennheiser”) and Sonova Consumer Hearing Sales Germany GmbH (“Sonova”), along with three responsible employees, for vertical price fixing in the consumer electronics sector. This enforcement action highlights continued regulatory vigilance against resale price maintenance (“RPM”) practices and offers important compliance lessons for businesses operating selective distribution networks.

Background, key findings and important lessons for businesses

The FCO announced the imposition of the fines on Sennheiser and Sonova (both based in Wedemark, Germany) in its press release of 7 May 2025. The investigation, initiated following a request from the Austrian competition authority, revealed that Sennheiser had engaged in systematic price fixing dating back to at least 2015. After Sonova acquired Sennheiser's consumer electronics business in March 2022, these practices continued (although to a lesser extent) until authorities conducted a dawn raid in September 2022.

Sennheiser employees systematically agreed with authorised dealers on measures for setting end consumer prices for premium headphones, typically involving pressure to increase prices. The company monitored retailers' pricing using online comparison services and specialised software, intervening when prices fell below the recommended resale price (“RRP”) or when retailers complained about competitors' pricing. To conceal these practices, employees used “code language”, referencing compliance with selective distribution criteria rather than explicitly discussing price fixing.

Andreas Mundt, President of the FCO, emphasised that these practices significantly hindered price competition to consumers' detriment. The practices were therefore considered “hardcore” restrictions of competition within the meaning of Art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU“) and Sec. 1 of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (“ARC“).

Despite having antitrust training, Sennheiser employees appeared to use this knowledge to better conceal anti-competitive activities rather than ensure compliance. The case also demonstrates acquisition liability risk, as Sonova inherited responsibility for continuing the unlawful practices for approximately six months after acquiring Sennheiser's consumer division.

This decision therefore offers three important lessons for businesses:

• Effective compliance: Companies must ensure antitrust compliance programmes are effectively implemented and monitored, not merely adopted on paper.
• Acquisition Due Diligence: Thorough competition law due diligence during acquisitions is essential, with prompt review of existing practices in acquired business units.
• Legitimate Price Recommendations: While RRPs are permissible, manufacturers must ensure these remain genuine recommendations without enforcement mechanisms.

Conclusion

The FCO’s decision serves as a stark reminder that vertical price fixing remains a priority enforcement area for competition authorities. Companies operating in all kinds of sectors would be well-advised to review their distribution practices and monitoring systems in light of this decision. While selective distribution systems, especially in consumer electronics and high-value goods sectors, are particularly susceptible to RPM, companies should be aware that RPM may also be found in other distribution systems. Therefore, special attention should be paid to how recommended prices are communicated to retailers and how compliance with distribution criteria is monitored and enforced.

If you need more information or further guidance in this area, please contact Stephan Waldheim or Gitty Narymany Shandy.

VISIT OUR COMPETITION LAW HOMEPAGE