Comparative advertising in the supermarket sector
Court of Amsterdam
The court of Amsterdam recently ruled on comparative advertising in the supermarket sector. Dirk van den Broek presented himself in advertisements by stating that it would be 20% cheaper than Albert Heijn. There is regular competition in the sector on price, both by supermarket organizations themselves and by franchisees in the supermarket sector against their direct competitors in the area. However, it is often overlooked that comparative advertising is legally subject to very strict rules. Products should therefore not simply be compared with each other. Sizes, weights, qualities and composition must be exactly the same in order to be able to apply a proper comparison. As a rule, this means that only A-brands can be compared and the comparison of the so-called house brands often ends up with deviations in composition, quantity, quality of packaging, et cetera. In that case, the court is obliged to apply the law, which also happened in the case that Albert Heijn brought against Dirk van den Broek. The claim for rectification was therefore granted by the court. The foregoing shows that comparative advertising is indeed permitted, but it goes without saying that no apples can be compared with oranges. All this is quite strict and must meet strict legal requirements.
Mr J. Sterk – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to strong @ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The benchmark for franchise forecasts – dated 29 May 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 19 March 2019, the Den Bosch Court of Appeal, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:1037, listed the case law of the Supreme Court on prognosis in franchising.
Franchise arbitration: too high a threshold? – mr. M. Munnik
When entering into an agreement, it is possible for the parties - contrary to the law - to designate a competent court. This also applies to the franchise agreement. Of this possibility
Franchise appeal for error due to incorrect forecasts and lack of support rejected – dated April 25, 2019 – mr. K. Bastian
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:697) on the question whether the mere fact that forecasts did not materialize justifies the conclusion that the franchisee has been shortchanged...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Increasing protection against recruiting franchisees” – dated 2 April 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
It is becoming increasingly apparent that recruited franchisees can be protected on the basis of the Acquisition Fraud Act.
The Franchise Association and Franchise Binding – Contracting 2019, No. 1
A contribution on common provisions in franchise agreements that require a franchisee to be a member of a franchisee's association.
Deception in recruiting a franchisee?
A ruling on whether the franchisor had made a misrepresentation when recruiting a franchisee.