Court rules in case surrounding Meal at Home: an important victory for Albert Heijn franchisees

On January 8, 2025, the Noord-Holland District Court ruled in a case between Albert Heijn Franchising BV (AHF) and its franchisees ( https://shorturl.at/mYaEL ). The case, brought by the Association of Albert Heijn Franchisees (VAHFR), revolved around the question of whether the Meal at Home concept introduced by AHF is a so-called ‘derived formula’ within the meaning of the Franchise Act, and whether prior consent from the franchisees was required for this. The court largely ruled in favor of the franchisees. The VAHFR was assisted in this case by Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys (Maaike Munnik and Jeroen Sterk) , specialists in the field of franchising.

The heart of the matter

AHF entered into a partnership with Food Connect Maaltijdservice BV to operate the concept Maaltijd Thuis. This concerns a meal delivery service under the name and image of Albert Heijn. The franchisees stated that this partnership falls under the definition of a ‘derived formula’ within the meaning of the Franchise Act. They argued that AHF should have requested prior permission on the basis of this law. The VAHFR brought the case before the court to obtain clarity about this obligation. The court ruled that Maaltijd Thuis qualifies as a derived formula. This means that, according to the Franchise Act, AHF should have requested prior permission from its franchisees for the introduction of this service. Because the parties had not agreed on a threshold value for loss of turnover, any foreseeable loss of turnover, however small, requires permission. Since AHF has failed to request permission for the partnership with regard to Maaltijd Thuis – and is thus acting in violation of the law – its actions qualify as unlawful.

No conflict with competition law and Services Directive

A major argument of AHF was that the right of consent, as laid down in the Franchise Act, would conflict with European competition law and the Services Directive. AHF stated that this right hindered it in freely developing new services. However, the court firmly rejected this argument. It was ruled that the right of consent has no noticeable effect on trade between Member States and is therefore not in conflict with competition law. The court also ruled that the Services Directive does not apply in a dispute between private parties. This means that the right of consent remains a robust instrument for protecting franchisees.

Protection of the franchisees

The judgment confirms that the Franchise Act is an important instrument to protect franchisees against possible competition from their own franchisor. The court emphasized that AHF, due to the clear association of Maaltijd Thuis with the Albert Heijn formula, should have foreseen that this could have an impact on the turnover of the franchisees. This judgment strengthens the position of franchisees in comparable disputes and also ties in with the Explanatory Memorandum to the Franchise Act, which explains that the right of consent is specifically intended to protect franchisees against such developments.

Mutual responsibilities in the franchise relationship

The VAHFR was confronted with a counterclaim from AHF, in which it was demanded that a threshold value for the right of consent be established. This claim was rejected by the court. However, the court did rule that the franchisee organisation may be expected to make an effort to arrive at a reasonable threshold value in consultation with AHF. At the same time, the court emphasised the importance of constructive consultation between the parties and saw no reason to intervene directly in this. This message emphasises the need for healthy dialogue and cooperation to prevent conflicts.

What does this mean for the future?

This ruling emphasises the importance of clear agreements and transparency within franchise relationships. It confirms that franchisors must carefully handle the rights of franchisees, especially when introducing new initiatives that may affect existing franchise formulas. At the same time, it emphasises that both franchisors and franchisee organisations are responsible for ensuring constructive dialogue. This ruling can serve as a guideline for the wider franchise world to find a balance between innovation, chain interests and the protection of individual franchisees within the framework of the Franchise Act.

Conclusion

The judgment of 8 January 2025 marks an important step in the protection of franchisee rights. It not only confirms the strength of the Franchise Act, but also emphasises the importance of mutual respect and cooperation within the franchise chain. Whether AHF will appeal this judgment is not yet known.