Comparative advertising in the supermarket sector
Court of Amsterdam
The court of Amsterdam recently ruled on comparative advertising in the supermarket sector. Dirk van den Broek presented himself in advertisements by stating that it would be 20% cheaper than Albert Heijn. There is regular competition in the sector on price, both by supermarket organizations themselves and by franchisees in the supermarket sector against their direct competitors in the area. However, it is often overlooked that comparative advertising is legally subject to very strict rules. Products should therefore not simply be compared with each other. Sizes, weights, qualities and composition must be exactly the same in order to be able to apply a proper comparison. As a rule, this means that only A-brands can be compared and the comparison of the so-called house brands often ends up with deviations in composition, quantity, quality of packaging, et cetera. In that case, the court is obliged to apply the law, which also happened in the case that Albert Heijn brought against Dirk van den Broek. The claim for rectification was therefore granted by the court. The foregoing shows that comparative advertising is indeed permitted, but it goes without saying that no apples can be compared with oranges. All this is quite strict and must meet strict legal requirements.
Mr J. Sterk – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to strong @ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages
End of main lease does not mean end of sublease with franchisee
On 7 July 2015, the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch overturned a judgment of the District Court of Limburg on the concurrence of a franchise agreement and a sublease agreement.
Chronicle Jurisprudence Franchise Law 2014
Chronicle Jurisprudence Franchise Law 2014
Attorneys Ludwig & Van Dam look back on transition process C1000
Attorneys Ludwig & Van Dam look back on transition process C1000
Court of Appeal upholds misrepresentation and wrongful conduct in the event of an unsatisfactory prognosis
The franchisee claimed annulment of the franchise agreement on the grounds of error, because the franchisor allegedly presented an unsatisfactory prognosis.
Directors’ Liability Concerning Franchising: Deception or Collaboration Plan
Directors' Liability Concerning Franchising: Deception or Collaboration Plan
Jumbo completes the C1000 conversion operation in more than 1100 days
Jumbo completes the C1000 conversion operation in more than 1100 days