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
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.