Recently, the Supreme Court of Justice issued a ruling in favor of the country’s largest beer company, which had been sued for allegedly using exclusivity clauses that were considered unfair. In its decision, the Supreme Court evaluated the positive and negative effects of the exclusivity agreements entered by the company to determine whether they adversely affected competition in its industry. The Court reached three key conclusions:
-
It is not enough that a company intends to restrict competition for its actions to be considered unfair.
-
It is essential that the agreement be capable of creating significant barriers to the entry of competitors or hindering them in some way.
-
Not all contracts that include exclusivity clauses are automatically considered unfair; it must be analyzed whether they limit the normal participation of other competitors in the market.
In addition, the Court determined that those who allege the existence of unfair exclusivity clauses must demonstrate that the company using them has carried out activities that demonstrate its intent and ability to restrict competition, as well as prove that they face significant difficulties in matching or improving the conditions established by the company entering into the exclusivity agreements.
Original source in Spanish.
