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

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more