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
Article in Entrance: “New owner”
“The catering company where I work has been taken over. The new owner now says that I no longer have to work for him, but can he refuse me as an employee?”
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.