Short Reads

Cheaper beer ahead? AB InBev fined for cross-border sales restrictions

Cheaper beer ahead? AB InBev fined for cross-border sales restrictions

Cheaper beer ahead? AB InBev fined for cross-border sales restrictions

06.06.2019 NL law

Dominant companies beware of hindering cross-border sales between resellers through, for instance, labelling or packaging measures to make your products less attractive for import.

The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 200 million fine on AB InBev, the world's largest beer company, for abusing its dominant position in the Belgian beer market by hindering cheaper imports of Jupiler, the company's most popular beer brand, from the Netherlands into Belgium. The fine may result in more cross-border sales, as multinational retailers in particular may take it as a cue to begin sourcing more products from the cheapest EU Member States.

According to the Commission's press release, (the Commission decision is not public yet), AB InBev is dominant in the Belgian beer market due to the company's consistently high market share and ability to increase prices independently from other beer manufacturers, the existence of barriers to significant entry and expansion, and the limited countervailing buyer power of retailers as a result of the essential nature of certain beer brands sold by AB InBev.

AB InBev abused its dominant position by restricting the possibility for supermarkets and wholesalers to buy cheaper Jupiler beer in the Netherlands and subsequently import it into Belgium. The overall objective of this strategy was to maintain higher prices in Belgium by limiting imports of less expensive Jupiler beer products from the Netherlands.

According to the Commission, AB InBev achieved this by:

  1. changing the packaging of some of its Jupiler beer products supplied to Dutch retailers and wholesalers to make it harder for them to sell in Belgium, particularly by removing the French version of mandatory information from the label, as well as changing the design and size of beer cans.
  2. limiting the volumes of Jupiler beer supplied to a Dutch wholesaler to restrict imports of these products into Belgium.
  3. refusing to sell these products to one retailer unless the retailer agreed to limit its imports of less expensive Jupiler beer from the Netherlands to Belgium.
  4. making customer promotions for beer offered to Dutch retailers conditional upon the retailer not offering the same promotions to its Belgian customers.

Since AB InBev cooperated beyond its legal obligation to do so (including proposing a remedy), the Commission granted a 15% reduction under its non-cartel cooperation procedure. The remedy will ensure that the packaging of all existing and new products in Belgium, France and the Netherlands will include mandatory food information in both Dutch and French for the coming 5 years.

In light of this decision, dominant companies should review their conduct towards resellers, including the imposition of labelling or packaging measures, to assess whether cross-border sales may be restricted. In addition, they should be aware of a likely increase in cross-border sales, since multinational retailers may take the fine as a cue to source more products from the cheapest EU Member States.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of June 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

 

Team

Related news

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring