At the Bundeskartellamt’s insistence the furniture retailer XXXLutz KG, based in Wels, Austria (“XXXLutz”), has abandoned its sweeping demands for a 7.5 percent “anniversary rebate” from its suppliers. The company has instead now negotiated the rebate, which originally was to be applicable for six months in 2020, with each of its suppliers and agreed on services to be provided in return. In view of this the Bundeskartellamt has decided not to examine the facts of the case any further.

Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt: “According to our preliminary assessment the original claims for special rebates which XXXLutz demanded from small and medium-sized furniture manufacturers, could have been abusive. Although these kind of rebates are not generally prohibited, suppliers which are dependent on supplying XXXLutz, must be offered adequate services in return, e.g. additional exhibition space or guaranteed listing. The aim of the so-called “Anzapfverbot” which prohibits a customer from demanding unjustified benefits from its suppliers, is to protect small and medium-sized companies and ultimately to ensure diversity for the consumer.”

In celebration of its 75th anniversary in 2020 XXXLutz had demanded a 7.5% rebate from its suppliers over two three-month periods. After the Bundeskartellamt had expressed its concern about the demands, XXXLutz decided instead to negotiate individually with each of its suppliers on the size and duration of any rebates. The level of the rebates turned out to be much lower on average than originally demanded. Furthermore, the company offered a consideration to all its suppliers which were originally denied a service in return for the rebate and also documented the consideration to be granted to each supplier.

XXXLutz has submitted all the agreements concluded with its suppliers to the Bundeskartellamt. On the basis of this documentation the Bundeskartellamt has informed XXXLutz that it will not proceed any further with the matter. Accordingly, the authority will also not decide on the lawfulness of the demands originally made. It decided not to examine the adequacy of the respective considerations in view of the considerably reduced and time-limited rebates.

Further information on this case is available in a case summary on the Bundeskartellamt’s website.