Prohibited Franchise Agreements: Conduct of Franchisees Among Others
Forms of franchising that do not involve a vertical relationship between the franchisor on the one hand and the franchisees on the other may be prohibited. On 23 October 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal, ECLI:NL:CBB:2018:526, imposed hefty fines on franchisees of healthcare laundries.
Franchise agreements sometimes contain agreements aimed at limiting competition in the industry with the network of franchisees. These agreements can, for example, concern joint purchasing, joint research and development activities, as well as emergency assistance and agreements about districts. Although such agreements between companies themselves can be seen as prohibited cartel formation, exceptions to the cartel prohibition apply to certain forms of franchising. It is often the franchisor who makes the accumulated knowledge and intellectual property rights available in the vertical relationship with the franchisees. The franchisor must be able to protect this and can therefore act in violation of the cartel prohibition. The so-called Block Exemption offers possibilities for this.
The Board is of the opinion that the laundries’ reliance on the Block Exemptions is unsuccessful because the franchise agreements are largely horizontal in nature. The relationship between the laundries involved was therefore not vertical. There was a horizontal collaboration between competitors, in which they divided territories as part of that collaboration and agreed with each other not to engage in acquisitions in each other’s territories and to respect each other’s existing relationships.
The Board takes the following circumstances into account:
- (i) all franchisees were shareholders of the franchisor;
- (ii) there were no shareholders of the franchisor other than the franchisees;
- (iii) the franchisees as shareholders were closely involved in the decision-making process regarding the (franchise) policy to be pursued by the franchisor, including division of territories, the acquisition ban and the entry of new franchisees or shareholders;
- (iv) the decisions taken by the shareholders’ meeting of the franchisor, including the alleged agreement, not only applied to the relationship between the franchisees on the one hand and the franchisor on the other, but also governed the relationship between the franchisees themselves, who mutually ( non-compliance with their obligations.
The exceptional position of franchising from the cartel prohibition is of great importance. It is essential that the agreements are vertical in nature, in the sense that the franchisor’s knowledge and rights are necessarily protected.
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
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a
Article Franchise & Law No. 7 – Franchise agreement as general terms and conditions
Uniformity of the franchise formula and (therefore also) uniformity of the agreements with the franchisees will often be of great importance to the franchisor.
The franchisee’s customer base
If the partnership between a franchisee and a franchisor ends, the question of who will continue to serve the customers may arise.