MAP vs UMAP vs UPP: Unilateral Pricing Policies Explained

Brands that sell through retailers and marketplaces meet three acronyms when they write a pricing policy: MAP (minimum advertised price), UMAP (unilateral minimum advertised price) and UPP (unilateral pricing policy). The pages that rank for these terms compare MAP with UPP and skip UMAP, and the terms are used loosely in the wild, so this guide sets all three side by side, with iMAP and MSRP, and shows real published policies.

MAP, UMAP, UPP, iMAP and MSRP at a glance

Two questions separate the three main policies. First, is the policy an agreement the reseller accepts, or a rule the brand announces alone? Second, does it floor only the advertised price, or the price the shopper actually pays? MAP and UMAP differ on the first question. UMAP and UPP differ on the second.

Term	What it restricts	How it's set	Legal footing (US federal)	Enforcement risk
MAP (minimum advertised price)	The advertised price only	Often a co-op advertising agreement the reseller accepts	An agreement, judged under the rule of reason since Leegin (2007)	Remedy is usually withholding co-op funds; cutting supply over an agreement raises risk
UMAP (unilateral minimum advertised price)	The advertised price, sometimes measured after coupons and bundles	Announced by the brand alone, no signature	Colgate (1919): a brand may announce terms and refuse to deal	Lower while the brand acts alone; rises with negotiation, assurances or threats
UPP (unilateral pricing policy)	The advertised price and the actual resale price	Announced by the brand alone	Same Colgate basis, but it controls the price paid	Same conduct risks as UMAP, on the price paid; UPPs have drawn class actions
iMAP (internet MAP)	Online advertised prices only	Either way; it describes channel scope	Same as the MAP or UMAP it belongs to	Same as that parent policy
MSRP (suggested retail price)	Nothing; it is a suggestion	Published by the brand	Suggesting prices is lawful	Low, unless the suggestion is enforced with pressure

These are the terms as brands use them, and definitions vary. One brand's "MAP policy" is written unilaterally; another's "UPP" covers only ads. The label on the document is not decisive. The text is.

What is MAP?

MAP stands for minimum advertised price. It is the lowest price a brand allows resellers to show in ads, product pages, marketplace listings and price-comparison feeds. It does not, by itself, control what the reseller charges. Depending on the wording, a shopper may still pay less at the register, in a phone quote or, in some policies, in the cart.

Many MAP programs grew out of cooperative ("co-op") advertising: the brand helps pay for a reseller's ads, and in return the reseller agrees not to advertise below MAP. K&L Gates describes this kind of MAP as a bilateral agreement whose natural remedy is withholding co-op funds, not cutting off supply. Scope matters too. In 2000 the FTC challenged the MAP programs of the five largest US music distributors partly because they reached ads retailers paid for themselves and in-store signs, which went well beyond a traditional co-op program (FTC analysis).

For the basics, see what a MAP policy is and how MAP differs from a suggested price in MAP vs MSRP.

What is UMAP (unilateral minimum advertised price)?

A UMAP pricing policy is a minimum advertised price policy that the brand announces on its own. There is nothing to sign and nothing to negotiate. The brand publishes the policy and a price list, and states what it will do when a reseller advertises below the floor. "Unilateral" describes how the policy is made, not where it applies (MAPP Trap).

Westin Automotive's published UMAP policy is a clear example of the mechanics (Westin):

• What it floors: the advertised price, measured as a "Net Adjusted Price" after discounts, rebates and coupons, with free or reduced-price bundles counted.
• Hidden prices: prices revealed through links, pop-ups or another website count, and phrases such as "click here for best price" are not allowed.
• Resale price: resellers stay free to set their own selling price.
• Consequences: Westin may revoke the right to use its trademarks and images in ads, sponsored promotions, co-op funds and compliance discounts, and may list the reseller as an unauthorized dealer.
• No assurances: Westin does not solicit or accept promises of compliance. That line exists to keep the policy unilateral.

Many brands publish a policy titled simply "MAP policy" that works exactly like this; MAPP Trap goes as far as calling creation by the brand alone a condition required for all MAP policies. If your MAP is announced, not signed, it is in substance a UMAP.

What is a unilateral pricing policy (UPP)?

A UPP uses the same one-way mechanism as UMAP but floors more. With UPP pricing, the floor applies to the price the reseller actually charges, not just the price it advertises. The brand announces minimum resale prices and states that it will stop selling to anyone who goes below them.

Air Lift Company's published UPP shows what one looks like in practice (Air Lift, version 2, dated April 15, 2026):

• Two tiers: distributors are held to minimum resale prices; retailers to minimum advertised and resale prices.
• Hidden-price workarounds: using "in-store-only pricing" to show or apply a lower price online, in a cart display or through automated pricing tools breaks the policy.
• Marketplaces: selling on third-party marketplaces such as Amazon, Walmart Marketplace or eBay is a breach, and for retailers a marketplace listing counts as a third violation automatically.
• Escalation for retailers: a written notice first; a second breach within 180 days puts the retailer on a Do-Not-Sell list for 90 days; a third within 365 days suspends all future sales.
• Unilateral by design: the policy says it "is not an agreement and requires no acceptance," and that Air Lift does not discuss pricing decisions with sellers.

UPPs are not new. In 2012, Samsung and Sony set minimum prices on televisions that retailers could not advertise or sell below, the Wall Street Journal reported; Sony's also covered camcorders, audio equipment and some computers (Christian Science Monitor). Digital Trends later described these TV policies as UPPs and reported that LG, Sharp and Toshiba followed (Digital Trends). Contact-lens makers used UPPs too, and Johnson and Johnson Vision Care said in April 2016 that it would drop its policy (Healio). These are history, not a statement about any brand's policy today.

MAP vs UMAP vs UPP: what each one covers

The differences show up in the gray areas. Here is one product, judged under each kind of policy. Example Co. and its resellers are fictional, and the numbers are illustrative. The floor is $100. The MAP column assumes a typical advertised-price policy, and the UMAP column assumes Westin-style wording that counts net prices and hidden prices.

Reseller (example)	What the shopper sees	MAP	UMAP	UPP
Seller A	Amazon listing at $89	Below	Below	Below
Seller B	Page shows $100; "see price in cart" reveals $85	Depends on wording	Below	Below
Seller C	Listing at $100 plus a 15% coupon	Depends on wording	Below (net $85)	Below
Seller D	Ads at $100 online; sells at $90 in its store	Not covered	Not covered	Below

Seller B is the case that causes most arguments. A MAP policy covers a cart-only price only if its wording treats that price as advertised. Westin's UMAP does, by counting prices revealed through links and pop-ups. A UPP covers it by design, because $85 is the price charged. Read more in see price in cart and MAP.

Are UMAP and UPP legal?

The short version: in the US, a brand acting alone has long been allowed to announce its terms and refuse to deal with resellers who ignore them. The risk comes from conduct that turns a one-way rule into an agreement. The longer version is in is MAP pricing legal; the points that matter for choosing a policy are these.

Colgate (1919). The Supreme Court said a manufacturer may freely choose whom it deals with and may "announce in advance the circumstances under which he will refuse to sell" (United States v. Colgate). The opinion frames that right as applying in the absence of any purpose to create or keep a monopoly. The Sherman Act reaches agreements, and an announcement is not one. Both UMAP and UPP rest on this.

Monsanto (1984). Cutting off a dealer after other dealers complain does not, by itself, prove an agreement. A plaintiff needs evidence "that tends to exclude the possibility of independent action" (Monsanto v. Spray-Rite). So what your team says and does is evidence.

Leegin (2007). The Court overruled the 1911 Dr. Miles rule and held that vertical price restraints, including minimum resale price agreements, are judged under the rule of reason, not treated as automatically illegal (Leegin). K&L Gates notes that Leegin did not make every pricing agreement lawful and did not change state law (K&L Gates).

Conduct that can turn a unilateral policy into an agreement. A 1998 FTC speech listed threats to penalize dealers, requiring the manufacturer's approval for price deviations, and removing all financial incentive to discount as steps that can create an agreement (FTC, Anthony). The same speech said the FTC had not ruled on whether escalating penalties for first, second and third violations are allowed on their own. The speech predates Leegin, so read it for the conduct points only. K&L Gates adds that grafting UPP enforcement onto a MAP agreement creates a hybrid that is still an agreement, and can become an unlawful one.

State law. Per law-firm commentary, Maryland amended its law in 2009 so that a minimum resale price agreement is an unreasonable restraint of trade (Commercial Law 11-204(b)), with only two enforcement actions since; California is unsettled; New York makes such contract terms unenforceable rather than illegal; and Kansas requires the rule of reason (DLA Piper, 2024). K&L Gates reads these rules as reaching agreements, not true unilateral policies. Check the statute text with counsel.

Calling it unilateral does not end the question. Contact-lens makers that used UPPs faced more than 50 class actions, consolidated in Florida, alleging that the policies were meant to end discounting and were part of a conspiracy. CooperVision ($3 million), Bausch and Lomb ($10 million) and ABB Optical Group ($30.2 million) settled first. Johnson and Johnson ($55 million) and Alcon ($20 million) settled in 2022 without admitting liability, and the defendants deny any conspiracy (MedTech Dive).

Which policy should you choose?

Start from the problem you are trying to fix, then check the risk that comes with the fix. Count the business cost too: a stricter policy means more pushback from retailers, more checking work, and the real chance of cutting off a large reseller you would rather keep.

If your main problem is	Lean toward	Why	Watch out for
Cheap ads and marketplace listings undercut your brand	MAP or UMAP	An advertised floor targets what shoppers compare	UMAP if you don't want to negotiate with every reseller
Cart prices and coupons are the real leak	UPP, or a UMAP that measures net price	The floor applies to what the shopper pays	Define cart, coupon and bundle prices in writing
You fund co-op advertising	MAP tied to co-op	Withholding funds is the natural consequence	Co-op funds offered on proportionally equal terms
You want to stop supplying repeat offenders	UMAP or UPP	Refusal to deal is the Colgate remedy	Don't mix in signed MAP terms
A lot of your volume is in physical stores	UPP	It covers resale prices in any channel	Online monitoring can't see in-store prices
You aren't sure	Start from a template	A clear written policy beats a clever label	Have counsel review it

The co-op point comes from the Robinson-Patman Act, which requires promotional allowances to be available to competing customers on proportionally equal terms (FTC).

Whatever you choose, keeping a unilateral policy unilateral is mostly practice. This checklist reflects common counsel advice and the conduct points above; it is not a legal standard:

• Publish the policy in writing, with the same terms for every reseller.
• Don't negotiate prices with resellers or ask them to promise compliance.
• Route questions to one policy administrator, not to sales reps.
• Apply the stated consequences consistently, and only those.
• Don't act on a rival reseller's complaint without your own evidence.
• Keep a dated record of every breach you act on.

The MAP policy template is a starting point you can copy and adapt for a unilateral MAP, with your counsel. Once your policy is published, find out who is already below it: run a free scan on up to five Amazon products.

How do you monitor a UMAP or UPP?

Each policy needs a different kind of evidence.

• MAP and UMAP need the advertised price as a shopper saw it: the listing, the seller, the time, and any coupon, bundle or cart-only price your policy counts.
• A UPP needs selling-price evidence: the price in the cart and at checkout after discounts. Online, that often means adding the product to the cart.

MAPComply records the online, advertised side of this. It checks Amazon, Google Shopping and brand and retailer sites daily, compares each captured price with the floor you enter, whatever your policy calls it, and pins each price to your exact variant, so a cheaper size or pack isn't judged against your floor. Every sighting keeps:

• a screenshot or page source, the price judged, the seller, the URL and the time seen;
• a SHA-256 fingerprint of the capture;
• a label: Below MAP, Price hidden (the page shows the price only in the cart) or Below MAP with a deal (below the floor after a coupon or promo code).

Each one is a possible violation until you confirm it. MAPComply then drafts the notice with the evidence attached for you to send; it never contacts sellers. Re-checks show when a seller is back at or above the floor, and repeat sightings by the same seller are grouped into one case with a count, which helps if your policy has escalating steps like Air Lift's 180-day window.

See what that evidence looks like in a sample report, read how it works, or go straight to Amazon MAP monitoring.

It does not see in-store prices or read checkout prices, so if your UPP covers store shelves or the final price paid, you need another way to check those, such as a test purchase with a dated receipt.

What about iMAP and EMAP?

iMAP (internet MAP) and EMAP (electronic MAP) describe channel scope: they cover online advertised prices only (MAPP Trap). Because channel scope is a separate question from how a policy is made, an iMAP can be a MAP or a UMAP in the sense used here; see how iMAP relates to MSRP.

Next step: check what your resellers show today

Before you decide between a UMAP and a UPP, look at what resellers actually show. Run a free scan on up to five Amazon ASINs: type the minimum price you set, add an email for the report link, and no card is needed. In about a minute you get a shareable report that marks each seller's price "Below the MAP you entered", "Price hidden" or "Couldn't check". Want to see one first? Here is a sample report.

To have it checked every day on Amazon, Google Shopping and brand and retailer sites, monitoring is self-serve, with plans from $199 a month: no demo, no sales call, cancel any time. Once you have evidence, read how to enforce MAP pricing.

Sources

• Cornell Law School LII: United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)
• Cornell Law School LII: Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984)
• Cornell Law School LII: Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), syllabus
• Federal Trade Commission: Vertical Issues for Federal Antitrust Law, speech by Commissioner Sheila F. Anthony (1998)
• Federal Trade Commission: Analysis of proposed consent orders, minimum advertised price programs of five music distributors (2000)
• Federal Trade Commission: Price Discrimination, Robinson-Patman Violations
• K&L Gates: Unilateral Policies Are 99 Years Old and Still the Safest and Most Effective Form of Resale Price Maintenance (2019)
• DLA Piper: Maryland antitrust enforcers hint at aggressive new action (2024)
• MedTech Dive: Johnson and Johnson, Alcon agree on $75M settlement to resolve contact lens antitrust case (2022)
• Healio: Bausch + Lomb, CooperVision reaffirm their stances on UPPs (2016)
• Christian Science Monitor: No more big TV discounts? Samsung and Sony push to control pricing (2012)
• Digital Trends: The sale is dead! Here's why TVs cost the same at every retailer now (2013)
• Air Lift Company: Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP)
• Westin Automotive: UMAP Policy
• MAPP Trap: Should You Treat iMAP Differently Than a Traditional MAP Policy?