Short Reads

Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system

Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective dis

Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system

01.11.2017 NL law

On 4 October 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled* in favour of sports goods manufacturer Nike in an action against a distributor, Action Sport, which had not complied with Nike's selective distribution policy. The District Court found that Nike's selective distribution system, which included a ban on sales via non-authorised online platforms, was compatible with competition law as it sought to preserve the luxury image of Nike's products.

In 2012, Action Sport and Nike agreed upon a new distribution policy which stipulated that authorised retailers like Action Sport were not allowed to sell Nike products via non-authorised parties. Notwithstanding this policy, Action Sport offered Nike products for sale on Amazon, an non-authorised online platform. Nike subsequently terminated the distribution agreement and sued Action Sport before the District Court of Amsterdam. In its defence, Action Sport argued that Nike's selective distribution system restricted competition and as such was null and void.

Firstly, the District Court held that Nike's distribution system qualified as a 'selective distribution system' and that Nike had applied the selection criteria uniformly and without discrimination. Secondly, the District Court referred to the opinion of AG Wahl in the Coty case: "that, having regard to their characteristics and their nature, luxury goods may require the implementation of a selective distribution system in order to preserve the quality of those goods and to ensure that they are properly used." Following this reasoning, the District Court ruled that Nike was allowed to set up a selective distribution system to preserve the luxury image of its products.

The District Court went on to dismiss Action Sport's argument that the ban on sales via non-authorised platforms was anticompetitive. Again, the District Court referred to AG Wahl, ruling that quality requirements in a selective distribution system may not have the desired effect if the products are offered for sale via non-authorised platforms. As it was undisputed that Amazon was not an authorised retailer, the District Court concluded that Nike had the right to terminate the distribution agreement.

The permitted scope of online sales restrictions in selective distribution systems has been one of the key topics recently discussed in the European Commission's e-commerce sector inquiry and in national case law [see our February 2016, May 2017 and June 2017 Newsletters]. The District Court of Amsterdam has clearly stated through this judgment that an online platform ban is not always considered a hardcore restriction of competition. More clarity will be provided by the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Coty case which is expected to be issued in early 2018.

*For unknown reasons the previously published judgment has been removed from the website on which Dutch court judgments are published.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  3. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  4. European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon
  5. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more