Prohibited market/area division in franchise agreements
Franchisees sometimes have more opportunities to break through market/area divisions than they think. This will create more problems for franchisors.
Many franchise agreements include a market division in the sense that each franchisee has been allocated an exclusive territory. Franchisees may then, for example, not make acquisitions in the territories of other franchisees. Such agreements aimed at sharing markets have an anti-competitive object and are, in principle, prohibited.
An exception to the prohibition may apply to franchise agreements, among other things. After all, franchise agreements can usually be seen as a “vertical” relationship in the relevant distribution chain. The franchisor is then the supplier and the franchisee the customer. In such a “vertical” relationship, a market division can also very well promote competition.
The fact that franchising does not always have to involve such a “vertical” relationship is apparent from the judgment of the Rotterdam District Court of 12 May 2016, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2016:3477, in which it was ruled that agreements on exclusive market areas (area distribution ) being forbidden. It follows from this ruling, in simplified form, that despite the fact that the parties refer to their cooperation as a “franchise agreement”, there need not be an exemption from the prohibition on market/area division. This applies if the cooperation under a franchise agreement can actually be qualified as a cooperation between the franchisees themselves.
The foregoing also raises the question of how franchise agreements should be assessed in which the franchisees are members of the same cooperative. In a cooperative, in particular, the franchisees work together and there is no vertical relationship. In that case, market sharing agreements would therefore be prohibited. Examples of such cooperative organizations are Primera, PLUS supermarkets and Coop supermarkets.
The danger is that franchisees can also be fined here by the AFM, which supervises competition law practices. Could this herald the end of the franchise organizations that aim to work together on a collective level? In any case, it seems that market sharing agreements in those situations are not without risk for the franchisee and for the franchisor.
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
Franchisors may no longer impose changes to store hours – February 12, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented.
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.