Internet sales in a franchise relationship
Internet sales are also enjoying increasing interest in conventional franchise circles. Particularly in retail, the turnover share and with it the interest in adding internet sales to the conventional formats is increasing rapidly. This phenomenon has not yet been taken into account in all franchise agreements. Particularly in those situations, the question of what is and what is not allowed arises more and more often. Is the franchisor or the franchisee free, without further agreements, to develop such activities or not? First of all, in this context, the franchisee may not be restricted in the possibilities of passive sales under competition law. The use of the internet and therefore internet sales can often be regarded as a form of passive sales. This means that the franchisor cannot simply prohibit the possibility of internet sales in the franchise agreement, or at least can only reserve this right for itself. The starting point is therefore that the franchisee must be allowed to operate its own website, provided that the internet sales are not actively aimed at sales in another issued exclusive territory or the area that is exclusively reserved for the franchisor.
Naturally, the franchisor can include rules in the franchise agreement, or preferably in the handbook, regarding the quality and formula-compliant appearance of websites and internet sales. Conversely, this is not necessarily the same. In situations where (absolute) district exclusivity has been granted, the franchisor is not automatically free to make internet sales in this exclusive district. First of all, not because the rule that passive sales must be allowed pertains to the vertical relationship from the franchisor to the franchisee and therefore does not automatically apply the other way around. If the franchisor does wish to reserve this option, it would therefore be wise for the franchisor to expressly include this in the franchise agreement. If it is not included, a discussion may arise afterwards about this form of competition by the franchisor within the exclusive territory. It is of course more obvious that the franchisor and franchisee will mainly use the possibilities of the internet to strengthen the formula. It is therefore particularly important that the (im)possibilities for this are recognized in time and that an arrangement is made for this in the franchise relationship. If such an arrangement has not been made, the franchisee may, under certain circumstances, believe that area exclusivity is being infringed improperly and file a claim for compensation for the damage suffered as a result.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).