Compensation for reputational damage to the franchisor

The District Court of Amsterdam ruled on 3 October 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:7830, on the question of whether reputational damage should be compensated to a franchisor if a third party damages the reputation of the franchise system, for which franchisees complain to the franchisor .

A developer of a digital platform for a franchisor had provided a platform that any third party could access. The franchisor claims that it has suffered reputational damage because business information of the franchisor has literally become public, as a result of which it has come to be seen in an unprofessional light in relation to, among others, its franchisees. Franchisees are also said to have complained to the franchisor that the proposed quality improvement was not achieved. The franchisor is claiming compensation of € 25,000 from the developer of the platform for reputational damage.

This concerns a claim within the meaning of Article 6:106 paragraph 1 sub b of the Dutch Civil Code: “For a disadvantage that does not consist of financial loss, the injured party is entitled to compensation to be determined in fairness if the injured party (…) in his honor or reputation has been damaged (…)”. The court that awards compensation on the basis of Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code has a discretionary power with regard to determining the amount of that compensation. The court may take all circumstances of the case into account when estimating the damage and it has the authority, if it considers there are grounds to do so, not to award compensation (cf. Supreme Court 27 April 2001, ECLI:NL:HR :2001:AB1337, NJ 2002/91).

In the opinion of the court, too little has been argued for the existence of reputational damage, or at least: what has been asserted does not carry enough weight to – if true – be regarded as damage eligible for compensation within the meaning of the law. Even if it were to be ruled that the allegation does weigh heavily enough to consider compensation to be awarded in principle, that compensation would in the present case be set at zero on grounds of fairness, because according to the court the intentions of the developer were good and that it had no intent or gross negligence for the reputational damage.

Reputation and goodwill are of great importance to the franchisor and their formula. It appears once again that preventing damage is very important, because recovering reputational damage can be difficult.

mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Interview Mr. J. Sterk and mr. C. Rutten in Franchise+: “Call to the automotive sector: prepare yourself well for the new Franchise Act” dated October 2, 2020

The new Franchise Act has a broad effect, also in the automotive sector. But are people aware of it enough?

Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount of 50% on the rent” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 15, 2020

Disappointing turnover due to the corona crisis may mean that the rent is halved, even if the rent is partly turnover-related.

By Alex Dolphijn|15-09-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article Franchise+ – “Franchisor uses “derivative formula” (without his knowledge)” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 9, 2020

Many franchisors will not be aware of the fact that they use a "derived formula" as referred to in the Franchise Act.

By Alex Dolphijn|09-09-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article Mr. C. Damen – Three conditions for the right to customer compensation for the agent upon termination of the agency agreement – ​​dated August 26, 2020

In the agency relationship between an agent and a client (the principal), the parties record their cooperation agreements in an agency agreement. When the principal enters into the agency agreement

By mr. C. Damen|26-08-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|
Go to Top