The UOHS fined the graphic design association for price fixing

Brno - Two associations of graphic design have violated the law according to the antimonopoly office when they determined minimum prices for graphic work or minimum author fees for their members in their internal materials. The Office for the Protection of Competition (ÚOHS) has imposed a fine of 60,000 crowns on the Association of Applied Graphics and Graphic Design and 50,000 crowns on the Typo Design Club. This was reported today by the Vice-Chairman of the antimonopoly office, Robert Neruda.
    The ÚOHS simultaneously prohibited the associations from proceeding according to their agreements. The decisions are first-instance, and the associations can appeal to its chairman, Martin Pecina.
“The Office considers such actions to be particularly serious distortions of competition, as they aim to unify the prices of competitors - members of the association, and indirectly also those of other non-member competitors,” said Neruda.
    The Association of Applied Graphics and Graphic Design published and subsequently distributed a document titled Author Fees in Applied Graphics and Graphic Design in 2001. It contained guidelines for calculating fees and prices for individual performances in the field of graphic design. It was reissued in 2007.
    The Typo Design Club approved and published a document titled Price List in 2000, which established minimum prices and hourly rates for graphic work. The association then acquainted its members with the document and published it on its website. According to Neruda, both associations violated the law for over seven years.
    In calculating the fine, the office considered the significant severity of the actions of both associations as well as the fact that it had been ongoing for a long time. Among the mitigating circumstances was that both associations cooperated with the ÚOHS during the administrative proceedings and ceased using the flawed methodology during its course.
    The office also conducted administrative proceedings with another association, the Union of Graphic Design. In this case, however, the ÚOHS concluded that the union had not violated the law.