Column Franchise+ – “Prohibition of sales via internet platforms in franchise agreement exempt from cartel prohibition”
At the end of last year, Thuisbezorgd.nl incurred the wrath of many meal delivery companies by announcing another rate increase. The standard rate of Thuisbezorgd.nl thus reached a record high of no less than 13 percent. This cost item can be saved if you order directly from the meal delivery service or even via another internet platform. This is particularly possible in a franchise context, because franchise organizations often have excellent websites and apps that are not inferior to Thuisbezorgd.nl in terms of convenience and functionality. But may a franchisor prohibit its franchisees from using Thuisbezorgd.nl?
On December 6, 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a judgment on the possibility of prohibiting the sale of products via internet platforms, which in my opinion answers this question. Although this judgment does not concern the delivery of meals, I believe that its outcome is applicable to this.
This case concerned the question of whether a producer of luxury cosmetics ‘Coty’ (including Calvin Klein and Chloé products) could prohibit its authorized distributors from selling the luxury products via Amazon. According to Coty, sales via this platform were undesirable because it would detract from the luxury image. The Court of Justice has assessed whether such a prohibition is permissible on the basis of European competition law.
According to the Court, systems of selective distribution for luxury products are permissible if certain conditions are met. In short, the conditions mean that the distributors must be selected on the basis of objective, qualitative, proportional and non-discriminatory criteria. The Court expressly confirms that maintaining a luxury image of branded products justifies the organization of a selective distribution system for those products. In doing so, the Court also justifies the ban on internet platforms.
Where it gets interesting are the passages in which the Court considers that even if the above conditions are not met, it cannot be ruled out that a ban on internet platforms is exempt from the cartel prohibition under the block exemption for vertical agreements. This would mean that suppliers of more common products such as delivery meals could also make use of a prohibition on offering products via internet platforms if they meet the market share limit of the block exemption (maximum 30%).
In my opinion, this judgment also confirms the admissibility of a prohibition on the sale of products via Thuisbezorgd.nl in a franchise agreement. In short, franchisors may prohibit their franchisees from selling their products via Thuisbezorgd.nl. The question is whether such a ban is commercially justified, given the large number of orders placed via Thuisbezorgd.nl. However, if that is the case, then there is nothing (any longer) in the way of franchisors to ban Thuisbezorgd.nl, which would allow them to boycott Thuisbezorgd.nl.
mr. RCWL Albers – Franchise Attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to albers@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?