Developments in competition law

Some time ago, the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa) made a groundbreaking ruling that is of great importance to all franchise organizations in the Netherlands.
Franchise agreements can be regarded as vertical agreements, which means that they are agreements between companies operating at different levels in the supply chain. The competition law for these vertical cooperation relationships, as it follows from the foregoing, every franchise organization should be by nature, is dominated in the first place by the market share of the relevant franchise organization on the “relevant market”.

The term ‘relevant market’ is not entirely unambiguous, but must in any case be distinguished into the relevant product market on the one hand and the relevant geographic market on the other. In short, the relevant product market comprises those products and/or services which, by reason of their characteristics, prices and intended use, are regarded by the end-user or customer as interchangeable or substitutable. The relevant geographic market, on the other hand, is the area within which the undertakings concerned play a role in the supply and demand of goods or services, in which the competitive conditions are sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighboring areas because the conditions of competition are clearly different.1

The so-called “de minimis announcement” played a decisive role in the aforementioned decision of the Nma. The “de minimis notice” (which has already been discussed several times in this series) stipulates that there is no appreciability in the context of vertical agreements if the market share on the relevant market does not exceed 15 % and furthermore, the agreement does not contain any so-called “hard-core restrictions”.

1. Commission Notice of 9 December 1997 on the definition of the relevant market for common competition law, OJ 1997, C-372/05.
The aforementioned ruling also has consequences for provisions in the area of ​​exclusive purchasing and non-competition, among other things. The possibilities in that context for franchise organizations can be considerably expanded. This will be discussed in more detail in one of the upcoming articles.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Franchisee circumvents non-competition clause through partner – mr. RCWL Albers – dated February 24, 2022

In a recent case, a graphics services franchisor attempted to ...

By mr. R.C.W.L. Albers|24-02-2022|Categories: Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , , |

Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Changing the franchise formula is possible” – mr. T. Meijer – dated February 8, 2022

Many franchise formulas are constantly evolving. The adage 'to stand ...

Can a franchisor increase the interim franchise fee and change the formula? – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated January 21, 2022

A franchisor must be able to adjust the franchise formula ...

Franchise agreement with free PLUS entrepreneur canceled – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated January 19, 2022

It is not often that a supermarket organization terminates an ...

Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Franchisee exclusively bound by a non-compete clause as a private company” – mr. M. Munnik – dated January 11, 2022

On December 22, 2021, the Rotterdam District Court issued an ...

Go to Top