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
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a