AB InBev probe finding set aside

THE Competition Tribunal has ordered that AB InBev’s (Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV) exclusive pouring arrangements related to stadiums be reinvestigated.

The order to the Competition Commission follows a complaint by alcoholic beverages company Distell.

This was after an investigation found the global beer brewer did not breach conditions relating to its merger with SABMiller (SAB) through its exclusive branding rights with outlets.

Distell accused AB InBev of breaching the merger conditions through entering into exclusive branding agreements with outlets.

Distell also accused AB InBev of breaching the merger conditions through entering into agreements to supply AB InBev products at stadium events.

In relation to AB InBev’s exclusive branding rights with outlets, the tribunal found that the alleged removal of competitor advertising materials from outlets by AB InBev’s representatives did not constitute a breach of the merger conditions.

The alleged conduct could, however, be in breach of other laws.

The tribunal found that the commission’s decision that stadiums did not fall into the definition of “outlet”, to which the merger conditions applied, was not rational.

Consequently, the commission’s findings that there was no breach of the conditions has been set aside, and the commission has been ordered to reinvestigate AB InBev’s agreements which grant it exclusive pouring rights at stadiums within 120 days.

In June 2016, the tribunal conditionally approved the merger between AB InBev and SAB.

Distell participated in the hearing and made substantial submissions in relation to conditions that were ultimately imposed on the merger.

In November 2016, Distell lodged a complaint with the commission, alleging that AB InBev had violated the merger conditions.

The commission found that AB InBev’s conduct did not amount to a violation of the conditions.

Distell then applied to the tribunal, seeking an order declaring that the conduct did amount to a breach of the merger conditions, in the alternative, to mandate the commission to reinvestigate the complaint.

AB InBev and Distell did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.