Minimum advertised price is the price below which a reseller may not advertise your product. It is not a price they must charge, and the distinction is the whole policy. A reseller can sell for less in the cart, in a private offer, or at the till, and the policy has nothing to say about it, because the policy governs the advertised price, not the transaction price. That is also why MAP policies are legal under US antitrust law when they are structured correctly: they are a unilateral brand policy about advertising, not a negotiated agreement about price. The Supreme Court's Leegin decision in 2007 moved vertical pricing policies to rule-of-reason analysis, and the FTC's guidance says reasonable price, territory, and customer restrictions on dealers are legal, and that a manufacturer may stop dealing with a retailer that does not follow its resale price policy. The guidance also says these programs are judged case by case, so a lawyer should read the policy before it is published.
The policy has to define what counts as an advertised price, and the definition has to be complete, because the violations live in the gaps. Coupons, bundles, subscribe-and-save, cart prices, and marketplace listings are all advertising if the customer can see the price before buying, and a policy that only names the product page will be violated on the coupon the next day. The floor has to be set where an independent retailer can meet it on a normal margin, or the policy is a demand to lose money, and no retailer will follow it. Publish the promotion windows everyone may use, so a sale is not a violation. Then apply the same floor to the brand's own website, because nothing loses a retailer faster than catching the brand itself under its own MAP.
The structure is the compliance. A MAP policy issued as a bilateral contract between a manufacturer and resellers resembles price-fixing under US antitrust law, which is a per se violation regardless of intent. A MAP policy issued unilaterally, where the brand announces the policy and decides whom it supplies, and does not negotiate retail prices with retailers, is the structure that keeps the brand on the right side of the law. State explicitly that it is not an agreement, that it requires no reseller signature, and that continued purchases constitute acknowledgment. That language is not decoration. It is the difference between a policy and a conspiracy, and it is why the policy has to be written once, by counsel, and then enforced the same way every time.
The enforcement ladder belongs in the policy too, in writing, before the first violation. A first notice, then loss of promotional support, then no more supply, applied in that order, to everyone, every time. A policy waived for the big account is not a policy, and enforcing it aggressively against small online sellers while ignoring the same behavior from a preferred large retailer exposes the brand to discriminatory enforcement claims and signals to every reseller that the policy is not serious. Define a 24 to 48 hour cure window for online violations, and communicate violation notices to a designated compliance contact rather than the sales contact, because the sales contact has an incentive to smooth it over, and the compliance contact does not.
Amazon will not help. That is the fact the post has to print, because it is the fact most brands learn last. Amazon does not enforce minimum advertised price policies, and it does not officially recognize them at all. Violations of a distribution agreement do not constitute intellectual property infringement, and Amazon's position is that enforcement of those agreements is a matter between the manufacturer and the retailers. A MAP violation is enforced through the reseller agreements, not through Amazon reports, and reporting a genuine reseller as counterfeit does not work and can put Brand Registry access at risk. The ladder is the enforcement: notice, loss of support, loss of supply, in that order, applied to everyone. The hammer is not available, and pretending it is will cost the brand more than the violation did.
If this topic is useful, these earlier guides go deeper on connected questions: Walmart Brand Portal: The Claim Form Is the Whole Game, Gray Market Listings: When Authorized Stock Leaks, and Project Zero: Amazon Hands You the Remove Button, Then Grades Every Press.
A written brand policy that sets the lowest price at which authorized resellers may publicly advertise a manufacturer's products. It governs the advertised price, not the transaction price, which resellers remain free to set independently.
Generally yes in the US when structured as a unilateral brand policy, not a negotiated agreement. Under the Supreme Court's Leegin decision in 2007, vertical pricing policies are judged case by case, so have a lawyer read yours before you publish it.
No. Amazon does not enforce minimum advertised price policies and does not officially recognize them. MAP is enforced through the brand's agreements with resellers and distributors, not through Amazon reports.
Follow the ladder in the policy: a first notice, then loss of promotional support, then no more supply, applied in that order to everyone. Define a 24 to 48 hour cure window for online violations.