Swiss multinational food and beverage company Nestlé has been slapped with a hefty fine of TI260 million ($8.7 million) by Turkey’s antitrust regulator, Rekabet Kurumu, for allegedly violating the nation’s competition regulations. In contrast, French dairy company Danone, implicated in the same investigation, faces no penalties.
Rekabet Kurumu’s investigation revealed that Nestlé, known for its Aero chocolate brand, had breached Article 4 of Turkey’s Protection of Competition law. This article explicitly prohibits any decisions that could “likely affect the prevention, distortion, or restriction of competition directly or indirectly in a particular market for goods or services.”
The regulator concluded that Nestlé’s actions constituted a violation by “determining the resale prices of its distributors and imposing regional and customer restrictions on its distributors.” Such practices are deemed anti-competitive and go against the principles of fair market competition.
Rad more: Nestle Trims L’Oreal Stake With $10B Sale
As a consequence, Nestlé now finds itself facing a significant financial penalty for its alleged transgressions. The fine of TI260 million ($8.7 million) serves as a stern reminder of the consequences that can befall companies found in violation of competition laws.
An oral defense hearing for Nestlé is scheduled to take place on February 6, providing the company an opportunity to present its case and potentially contest the allegations made by the antitrust regulator. The hearing will be a crucial moment for Nestlé to articulate its position and attempt to mitigate the financial implications of the imposed fine.
The case has also garnered attention due to the contrasting situation faced by Danone, another major player in the food industry implicated in the same investigation. As of now, Danone has escaped penalties, leaving industry analysts and stakeholders curious about the divergent outcomes for the two multinational corporations.
Related: Just Food
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand