WIN | We are pleased to let you know that we have won another "slotting fee" case for our client. The trial court agreed with our arguments showing how suppliers and shopping chains operate in a modern distribution channel so that the case ended favourably for our client with the claim dismissed. While the judgment is not final and unappealable yet, it marks a developing line of authority where courts tend to look at market access restriction claims from many angles.

Market access restriction becomes an important part of evidence in unfair competition cases where, on top of their trade margin, retailers also charge fees for listing or slotting supplier’s goods. In addition, the present case confirms that there may be a number of parallel contracts that bind suppliers with retail chains so that their mutual relationship may have many dimensions. That said, the existence of such broad interrelations may not operate as the sole argument on which to base the claim that the other party engaged in unfair competition conduct.

Our view:

The case law on those disputes can be seen to depart from a simplistic approach to unfair competition towards a more nuanced balancing of both parties’ arguments. We have been part of this trend for many years, acting as litigation counsel for retail chains, and we are proud of the input our lawyers bring into the process.

Anita Woroniecka handled this case on behalf of SENDERO Tax & Legal.