Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Distribution of (potential) customers prohibited?” – September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Within many franchise organizations, agreements are made about the recruitment of (potential) customers in a certain area. The competition watchdog, ACM, has imposed various fines on a number of companies and their directors for such agreements.
The companies concerned were active in the field of distribution, rental and sale of reading folders to customers in the Netherlands. They had made mutual agreements that meant that they would not recruit customers from each other’s (potential) customers. The agreements consisted of area agreements about customers, about taking over customers and about information exchange about prices. These agreements were supported by agreed penalty clauses.
Not every one non-compete obligation is prohibited. Area agreements are also in franchise relationships are in principle permitted. However, ACM ruled that in the present case the purpose of these agreements must have been to weaken mutual competition. After all, the agreements were intended to bring about calm in the market and thus to maintain market shares in a shrinking market. According to the entrepreneurs involved, the agreements were necessary to prevent excesses, because the usual non-competition prohibition in the contracts alone would not be sufficient. However, it is considered that a customer allocation agreement as made by the parties was not necessary in the present case to counteract the excesses referred to.
The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal confirmed on 20 August 2019 that the cartel prohibition had been violated, but will further adjust the amount of the fines imposed and their distribution. On. On October 23, 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal also had a decision Franchisees of health care laundries imposed hefty fines in a similar case. Then it was also ruled that there there was a horizontal cooperation between competitors, whereby districts were divided and mutual agreements were made not to engage in acquisitions in each other’s district and to respect each other’s existing relationships.
Franchisors and franchisees must, when making agreements and coordinating behavior for the division of (potential) customers, division of territory and (retention of market shares), ascertain whether this is in conflict with the cartel prohibition, with all possible far-reaching consequences. . Timely thorough research is an absolute must.
Click here for the published article
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Legal Franchise Statistics 2019: slight decrease in number of franchise disputes
In 2018, 44 judgments were published on Rechtspraak.nl, 12 of which were appeal cases and one in cassation (a prognosis issue against Albert Heijn).
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Judge again rules in favor of Domino’s franchisees” – dated September 3, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
At the beginning of 2018, almost all franchisees of Domino's and the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees submitted two issues to the court in Rotterdam.
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “The interim termination of the franchise agreement” – August 12, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
A franchise agreement can end prematurely in many ways.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Parliamentary questions asked about (false) self-employment franchisees” – dated 24 July 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
Parliamentary questions have recently been asked about the so-called bogus self-employment within the relationship between franchisor and franchisee.
Article Franchise+: “With our franchise formula you will earn mountains of gold.” dated 10 July 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The distinction between permissible promotions and misleading information remains a gray area, despite the relevant legislation.
Franchisee may purchase a range of foreign products after mandatory formula change – June 6, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
The District Court of East Brabant recently dealt with an important matter in preliminary relief proceedings in which a franchisee was completely involuntarily forced to adopt an alternative formula.