---
title: "Screen supplier–distributor agreements for RPM under CCA s 48"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/screen-supplier-distributor-agreements-for-resale-price-risk/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A29-T1-R9-CTH"
practice_area: "Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Screen supplier–distributor agreements for RPM under CCA s 48

> Extract recommended, maximum and minimum price clauses and related incentives from the agreement into a table against the per se RPM prohibition.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/screen-supplier-distributor-agreements-for-resale-price-risk/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Extract recommended, maximum and minimum price clauses and related incentives from the agreement into a table against the per se RPM prohibition. |
| What the lawyer must review | Remember RPM is per se: no SLC or efficiency defence Separate recommended from specified prices Check Australian nexus, inducements, supply refusals and advertising limits Note the $100m maximum from 28 March 2026 Use Techtronic ($15m, Dec 2023) as the benchmark |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Screen supplier–distributor agreements for resale-price risk](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/screen-supplier-distributor-agreements-for-resale-price-risk.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and identifying points for review. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
2. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
3. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*