Short Reads

Cigarettes producers fined for alleged indirect info exchange

Cigarettes producers fined for alleged indirect info exchange

Cigarettes producers fined for alleged indirect info exchange

01.10.2020 NL law

Enforcement of competition rules in relation to indirect information exchange seems to be catching on; while the European Commission only flagged the risks in its consumer electronics cases, the ACM has taken up the challenge and imposed fines. Four cigarettes producers were fined a total of EUR 82 million for allegedly indirectly exchanging information on the future retail prices of cigarettes through their wholesalers and other buyers. According to the ACM, the manufacturers knowingly accepted this information and used it to determine their own pricing strategies.

Companies should be wary of the ACM’s strict approach towards indirect information exchange. According to the ACM, any customer communication should be clearly marked ‘for your eyes only – not for redistribution’ and sales teams should be instructed to expressly decline any competitor information inadvertently received through third parties.

Third party price list circulation

Due to a sector-specific taxation system, cigarette pack prices are set by the manufacturer instead of the retailer (as is usual for consumer products). To allow wholesalers and other buyers to adapt their sales systems to newly-set prices, tobacco manufacturers send price lists to them in advance. The ACM found that, in the period 2008-2011, some of the buyers passed the manufacturers’ future price lists on to competitor manufacturers, who knowingly received, accepted and asked for them. Manufacturers allegedly also sent ‘trial balloons’ with information to wholesalers to feel out their competitors’ response. The ACM held that the manufacturers used this information to set their own retail prices for cigarettes packs, thereby enabling them to coordinate their pricing strategies.

First time fine for indirect info exchange

This is the first time the ACM has imposed fines for indirect information exchange between competitors. The Commission has played with the concept in its consumer electronics cases but decided to stick to vertical resale price maintenance (RPM) because there was no clear-cut evidence of retailers driving the RPM (by e.g. requesting their suppliers intervene with ‘undercutting’ retailers).

According to the ACM, there is evidence that the manufacturers were aware that their information found its way to their competitors through the wholesalers, and used this ‘road’ to their own advantage. As a result, despite that not all manufacturers always implemented exactly the same price adjustments, the conduct put ‘the brakes on competition’; thereby stifling mutual competition.

The four cigarette producers have filed objections against the ACM’s decision. It therefore remains to be seen whether the ACM approach will stand.


For now, companies should remain vigilant about the type of information they receive – even inadvertently. Even though most sales managers are aware of the anticompetitive risks of competitor contacts, the risks of accepting third party information may be less obvious. 

Pending the appeals against the ACM Decision, it is therefore advisable for companies to double-check whether their antitrust compliance programmes include potential risks related to third party communications. It is also worth clearly indicating ‘for your eyes only – not for redistribution’ on all customer communications. Finally, until a ruling on the appeals, it is advisable to instruct sales teams to expressly decline all competitor information inadvertently received through third parties, and to notify the company’s legal department as soon as possible upon receipt of such information.



This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of October 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:



Related news

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

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