Can Brands Really Control Where You Sell Their Products Online

The Court of Appeal has handed HOKA owner Deckers a significant victory in a case that could shape how premium brands control online sales in the future.

The dispute started when running retailer Up & Running wanted to shift excess HOKA stock during the Covid pandemic. With physical stores struggling, the retailer hoped to move discounted products through a separate website called runningshoes.co.uk instead of its approved online store. Deckers rejected the idea, arguing that HOKA products could only be sold through authorised websites. Up & Running launched the site anyway, and Deckers responded by ending the supply agreement.

What followed became a major competition law fight.

Up & Running argued that Deckers was unfairly restricting online competition and using website approvals as a disguised way to stop discounting. The Competition Appeal Tribunal originally agreed with the retailer, finding that Deckers was effectively trying to control pricing and preserve its own clearance channel for discounted products.

But the Court of Appeal saw things differently.

The judges said the earlier ruling focused too heavily on Deckers’ intentions instead of asking a more important question. Did the restriction itself cause a serious enough harm to competition that it should automatically be considered illegal?

The court decided the answer was no.

A key factor was that Deckers had not banned online sales altogether. Retailers were still free to sell HOKA products online through approved websites, and discounting itself was not prohibited. The restriction only applied to selling through unapproved domains. That distinction ended up mattering a lot.

The ruling also reinforces a broader trend in competition law. Courts are becoming more cautious about automatically labelling brand restrictions as anti competitive without strong evidence. The judgment repeatedly stressed that competition law should not interfere unless there is a clear need to do so.

For brands, especially premium or lifestyle brands, this decision will come as welcome news. It suggests companies still have room to protect how and where their products are sold online, provided they stop short of outright online sales bans or direct resale price fixing.

For retailers, though, the decision is a reminder that distribution agreements still carry serious weight. Even in an era where ecommerce dominates, brands may have more control over digital sales channels than many retailers would like.

The bigger takeaway is that courts appear willing to recognise the balancing act between protecting competition and allowing brands to maintain control over their image, pricing strategy, and customer experience.

That balance is not going away anytime soon.