Several Hamilton real estate agencies responded to Trade Me pricing changes by discussing whether listing costs would be passed on to vendors. The Commerce Commission alleged this was unlawful price fixing under the Commerce Act.
Selected cases
Supreme Court of New Zealand · [2020] NZSC 25
Lodge Real Estate Ltd v Commerce Commission
The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered price fixing after real estate agencies discussed passing Trade Me listing costs to vendors.
Supreme Court of New Zealand2 Apr 2020
Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.
Get legal helpStart here
Quick read
- Competitors should not coordinate how they will pass on costs, set fees or respond to a supplier price change.
- The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered price fixing after real estate agencies discussed passing Trade Me listing costs to vendors.
Use this to check
- Do not discuss future pricing with competitors
- Leave trade association meetings if pricing coordination starts
- Keep internal records showing independent pricing decisions
Decision snapshot
What happened
- Several Hamilton real estate agencies responded to Trade Me pricing changes by discussing whether listing costs would be passed on to vendors.
- The Commerce Commission alleged this was unlawful price fixing under the Commerce Act.
What the court had to decide
- The issue was whether there was an agreement or understanding to fix, control or maintain prices, and whether a moral obligation was required for price-fixing liability.
What the court decided
- The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's price-fixing analysis.
- The case is a warning about competitor discussions on fees, charges and cost pass-throughs.
Practical impact
Practical read
- Competitors should not coordinate how they will pass on costs, set fees or respond to a supplier price change.
- Even informal industry discussions can create competition-law risk, especially where people leave the meeting with a shared expectation about future pricing.
- Businesses should make pricing decisions independently, keep records of their own commercial reasons and train staff to exit conversations that move into fees, margins, customers or cost pass-throughs.
Useful next steps
- Do not discuss future pricing with competitors
- Leave trade association meetings if pricing coordination starts
- Keep internal records showing independent pricing decisions
How businesses should read it
Competitors should not coordinate how they will pass on costs, set fees or respond to a supplier price change. Even informal industry discussions can create competition-law risk, especially where people leave the meeting with a shared expectation about future pricing. Businesses should make pricing decisions independently, keep records of their own commercial reasons and train staff to exit conversations that move into fees, margins, customers or cost pass-throughs.
Key takeaways
- Do not discuss future pricing with competitors
- Leave trade association meetings if pricing coordination starts
- Keep internal records showing independent pricing decisions