A distributor repeatedly advertises below your minimum advertised price. Your team has sent notices, but the discounts continue. Can you stop supplying the account?
Potentially, yes—but the decision must fit your MAP policy, authorized reseller or distributor agreement, and applicable law. The FTC recognizes that manufacturers can independently stop dealing with resellers that do not follow their pricing policies, subject to antitrust limits. Contractual notice requirements remain a separate consideration.
That does not mean every violation permits immediate termination. Before acting, establish what happened, which provision applies, and what consequence your documents support.
This article focuses on U.S. business practices and provides strategic information, not legal advice. Have qualified counsel review policies, agreements, and proposed cutoffs.
Table of Contents
- Start With the Wording of Your Policy and Agreements
- Confirm That the Conduct Is Actually a MAP Violation
- Build an Evidence File Before Applying Consequences
- Apply Only the Consequences Your Documents Permit
- Check Notice Requirements and Existing Commitments
- Make the Decision Operational—and Verifiable
- Enforce the Policy You Have
Start With the Wording of Your Policy and Agreements
Read your MAP policy alongside the applicable authorized reseller agreement, distribution agreement, amendments, and promotional notices.
Identify the covered products, channels, territories, and customer types. Check whether the consequence applies to one product, a product line, or the entire account.
Then examine the enforcement language. Does it provide a warning, an opportunity to correct the violation, temporary supply restrictions, or termination? Are repeated violations required? How are they counted?
Do not assume every MAP policy is a signed contract. Independently adopted pricing policies can operate differently from negotiated contractual obligations. Have counsel confirm how your policy interacts with existing agreements rather than casually converting a unilateral policy into a pricing agreement.
Your enforcement process should follow the documents governing that relationship—not the penalty your team wishes they contained.
Confirm That the Conduct Is Actually a MAP Violation
MAP concerns covered advertised prices, not necessarily the final transaction price. A unilateral pricing policy, or UPP, can address actual resale prices as well. Published policies may set different requirements for wholesale distributors and consumer-facing retailers.
MSRP and SRP are suggested retail prices; advertising below a suggestion does not, by itself, establish a MAP violation.
For your review, verify the applicable price schedule and advertising definition. Examine coupons, bundles, rebates, and any temporary promotional exception.
Confirm who funded or controlled the discount. Do not automatically attribute a platform-funded coupon to the distributor.
After a promotion ends, check the exact expiration time and the threshold that resumes. Evaluate any remaining discount against the policy—not an assumed grace period.
Build an Evidence File Before Applying Consequences
We recommend keeping a reviewable record for every proposed enforcement action:
- The offer: Timestamped screenshots, listing address, seller identity, advertised price, and product identifier.
- The applicable rule: Policy version, price schedule, relevant agreement provision, and any promotional exception.
- The history: Prior verified incidents, notices, delivery records, responses, correction deadlines, and current strike status.
Check the product variant, pack size, condition, and account identity before assigning a violation. At Brand Alignment, our managed enforcement process includes screenshot review and product matching before notices are sent.
Distinguish evidence from strike counting. Multiple screenshots of one continuing advertisement should not automatically become multiple strikes. Apply the counting rules your policy actually uses.
A complaint from another dealer is a lead to verify—not a substitute for your own findings.
Apply Only the Consequences Your Documents Permit
Do not invent additional penalties because a distributor has become frustrating to manage.
Consider a hypothetical program requiring a written warning for the first verified violation, a 30-day restriction on the affected product after a second qualifying incident, and termination after a third.
Under that framework, the second incident should not automatically become permanent, account-wide termination. Likewise, a warning stage should not include an unannounced fine.
This is an illustration, not a recommended universal three-strike policy.
Avoid retroactively changing the rules, shortening an applicable correction period, or withholding earned rebates without an established legal and contractual basis. Our strike-policy guidance distinguishes future eligibility restrictions from taking away benefits already earned.
Where documents reserve discretion or separate termination rights, have counsel evaluate their scope. Do not assume a broad clause overrides every other commitment or legal protection.
Apply the reviewed process consistently, and record the basis for any permitted exception.
Check Notice Requirements and Existing Commitments
A temporary supply suspension, withdrawal of reseller authorization, and termination of a distribution agreement are different actions. Specify which one you are proposing.
Review notice recipients, delivery methods, effective dates, and any required opportunity to correct the problem. New York’s commercial code, for example, generally requires reasonable notification for contract termination except upon an agreed event, with additional limits on dispensing with notice.
Dealer-protection laws can impose further requirements. Wisconsin’s Fair Dealership Law includes notice and correction provisions for covered relationships. A contract’s wording alone does not resolve whether those protections apply.
Have counsel review accepted purchase orders, shipment commitments, inventory arrangements, credits, and outstanding obligations before implementing a cutoff.
Do not promise a blanket cancellation of everything in progress merely because your team has decided to stop accepting future business.
Pricing restrictions also receive different treatment under state and international law. Calling a program “MAP” or “unilateral” does not itself establish legality.
Make the Decision Operational—and Verifiable
Once the appropriate action is approved, assign responsibility for implementing it.
Give sales operations the affected account, products, effective date, restriction period, and reinstatement conditions. Verify that ordering and fulfillment systems reflect the decision.
Keep monitoring, but do not treat continued marketplace availability as proof of fresh supply. Investigate earlier purchases and remaining stock before alleging another breach.
Enforce the Policy You Have
At Brand Alignment, we help brands validate MAP violations, document evidence, communicate with authorized sellers, and track policy-based escalation. Your legal team should determine whether suspension or termination is appropriate.
The principle is straightforward: prove the violation, follow the required process, and apply only the consequences supported by your governing documents and applicable law.
Speak with our team about building a documented MAP enforcement process that supports distributor accountability.
Take control of your marketplace presence with fast, effective brand protection strategies.
Every day, unauthorized sellers and MAP violations can erode your pricing, reputation, and revenue. Don’t wait for problems to escalate, start enforcing your policies and reclaim your market authority with our proven tools and expert support.
Brand Alignment 
