Franchise agreements and horizontal cooperation
Franchise agreements are, by their nature, so-called vertical in nature. This means that there is a vertical cooperation between the franchisor, the one who makes the franchise formula available, and the franchisee, the one who exercises the franchise formula. This is generally seen as a collaboration between two different links in the supply chain.
In addition, we know of cooperation between competitors in practice. We call this horizontal cooperation. In terms of competition law, considerably less is allowed within a horizontal collaboration than in a vertical collaboration, based on regular franchise agreements. On the basis of a common franchise agreement, it is permitted to stipulate matters such as exclusive purchasing, price recommendation arrangements, non-competition clauses, etc. between franchisor and franchisee. All these arrangements are not or hardly permitted in the case of cooperation between competitors. In the case of a collaboration between competitors, one should think of a partnership of, for example, two or more greengrocers who jointly make agreements with regard to the subjects mentioned above. If these agreements take place on a joint, for example cooperative basis, the legislator only allows such cooperation to a very limited extent. This is completely different with a franchise relationship. The topics mentioned here can indeed be properly constructed on the basis of a franchise agreement between franchisor and franchisee. In practice, of course, there must actually be a vertical relationship: cooperation between competitors may not lead to an artificial franchise construction with the aim of stipulating vertically what is actually not possible horizontally.
When setting up a franchise construction, the parties are advised to carefully check in advance whether there is cooperation between the parties or whether there is a franchise concept actually made available by a franchisor. If the latter is the case, the way is open for a construction that is permissible under competition law, based on a common franchise agreement.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.