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
Duty of care franchisor in the pre-contractual phase
The District Court of Limburg ruled on 6 April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2016:2843, that the franchisor has a duty of care towards the prospective franchisee in the pre-contractual phase.
Franchisee avoids joint and several liability in private
In a judgment of 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2913, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled on the meaning of the clause in the franchise agreement stipulating that
Incorrect prognosis due to lack of location research
The District Court of The Hague ruled on 21 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor's forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor
Column Franchise+ – “Disputes about franchise fees”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, Hema, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot
Ludwig & Van Dam sponsor of the Franchise Trophy 2018
On May 24, 2018, VVD member of parliament Martin Wörsdörfer and ID&T founder Duncan Stutterheim will present the Franchise Trophy 2018 on behalf of the Dutch Franchise Association.
Column Franchise+ – “Flashing quarrels about franchise fee must stop”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, HEMA, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot