I. Introduction
Distribution systems constitute one of the principal mechanisms through which manufacturers and suppliers bring their products to end-users. Dealership arrangements remain among the most widely used distribution models across a broad range of industries, with the marketing and sale of products being carried out predominantly through dealer networks.
Although dealership systems are fundamentally based on vertical relationships, the relationship between dealers operating within the same distribution network gives rise to a distinct set of competition law considerations. Dealers marketing products of the same brand frequently compete for the same customer base, pursue the same commercial opportunities, and operate within the same market. Accordingly, participation in a common distribution network does not eliminate the competitive constraints that dealers exert upon one another.
Indeed, in many sectors, customers choose between dealers of the same brand on the basis of pricing, discount policies, promotional conditions, delivery terms, and after-sales services. Competition often takes place precisely through these parameters.
Against this background, information exchanges between dealers of the same brand occupy a particularly sensitive position under competition law. The exchange of information relating to prices, discount policies, planned price increases, or customer-specific commercial practices may directly affect the fundamental principle that undertakings must determine their market conduct independently.
Recent decisions of the Turkish Competition Board demonstrate that communications between dealers are no longer assessed solely through the lens of distribution arrangements. Increasingly, the Board examines such interactions from the perspective of the horizontal competitive relationship existing between dealers operating within the same network.
II. The Competition Law Characterisation of Relationships Between Dealers of the Same Brand
From a competition law perspective, the decisive question is not whether undertakings form part of the same economic structure, but whether they exert competitive pressure on one another.
Although two dealers of the same brand may operate within the same supply chain, they will often be direct competitors at the distribution level. In markets where customers can obtain the same product from different dealers, differences in pricing, discount policies, and commercial conditions constitute the very basis of competition between those dealers.
For this reason, contacts between dealers of the same brand are assessed differently from the traditional vertical relationship between a supplier and its distributors. Communications among dealers may have implications comparable to information exchanges between competing undertakings.
Particular attention is therefore paid to exchanges concerning sales prices, discount rates, the timing of future price increases, promotional conditions, or customer-specific commercial practices. Such information may directly affect the principle that undertakings should determine their market behaviour independently.
III. Why Are Pricing and Discount-Related Information Considered Competitively Sensitive?
Price is the most visible and immediate parameter of competition. However, competition law is concerned not only with the final price itself, but also with the elements that shape pricing decisions.
Discount rates, promotional conditions, customer-specific advantages, and anticipated price adjustments reveal important aspects of an undertaking’s commercial strategy and competitive positioning in the market.
Access to such information may enable competing undertakings to align their conduct with the anticipated behaviour of their rivals. As a result, the independent decision-making process that competition law seeks to protect may be undermined.
Accordingly, both EU competition law and the decisional practice of the Turkish Competition Board regard not only pricing information itself but also factors influencing future pricing behaviour as competitively sensitive information.
IV. The Turkish Competition Board’s Recent Approach: Information Exchange Among Dealers of the Same Brand
The Turkish Competition Board’s decision dated 20 November 2025 and numbered 25-43/1049-601 provides a noteworthy illustration of how information exchanges between dealers of the same brand may be assessed under competition law.
The case concerned communications exchanged within a messaging group composed of several dealers operating under the same brand in Ankara. According to the findings set out in the decision, the discussions involved pricing practices, discount rates, price increase policies, and sales conditions.
The Board placed particular emphasis on statements such as:
“We may continue with a single discount policy in the Ankara wholesale market,”
“Is there anyone willing to share suggestions and ideas so that we can converge on a similar position?” and
“I believe it would be beneficial to launch this product into the wholesale channel at a single price.”
In the Board’s assessment, such exchanges went beyond the mere sharing of information. Rather, they were capable of facilitating a common understanding regarding the dealers’ pricing behaviour.
The Board further noted that the exchange of information concerning prices, discount rates, and pricing policies enabled dealers to gain insight into one another’s commercial conduct and market strategies. In the Board’s view, the significance of such exchanges lies not merely in the information disclosed, but in their potential to influence the competitive process itself.
One of the most notable aspects of the decision is that the Board did not base its assessment on the existence of an explicit price-fixing agreement. Rather, it focused on the nature of the communications and their capacity to reduce strategic uncertainty among competing dealers.
The decision therefore illustrates that competition law concerns may arise even in the absence of a formal agreement where communications are capable of facilitating coordination or influencing independent commercial decision-making.
V. Assessment
The Board’s approach confirms that relationships between dealers of the same brand cannot be analysed solely through the prism of distribution arrangements. While dealers may operate within the same commercial network, they nevertheless remain independent undertakings competing for customers in the marketplace.
This distinction is of particular importance in sectors where competition takes place primarily at the dealer level. In such markets, discount policies, promotional conditions, customer-specific offers, and pricing strategies often constitute the key competitive variables through which dealers differentiate themselves.
Consequently, exchanges concerning these parameters cannot be viewed merely as operational or administrative communications within a distribution system. To the extent that such exchanges reveal commercially sensitive information or enable dealers to anticipate the conduct of their competitors, they may raise concerns under competition law.
The Board’s recent decisional practice reflects a growing willingness to scrutinise communications that may facilitate coordination, even where they fall short of an explicit agreement. The focus of the analysis is increasingly directed towards the competitive significance of the information exchanged and its potential impact on the independence of commercial decision-making.
From this perspective, the legal relevance of information exchanges between dealers does not stem from the fact that they operate under the same brand, but rather from the competitive relationship that exists between them.
VI. Conclusion
The relationship between dealers of the same brand cannot be characterised solely as a component of a distribution system. Dealers marketing the same products and targeting the same customer base will, in many circumstances, constitute direct competitors.
Against this backdrop, exchanges relating to prices, discount rates, future pricing intentions, promotional conditions, and comparable commercial parameters warrant particular attention under competition law.
Recent decisions of the Turkish Competition Board demonstrate an increasing focus on communications taking place within dealer networks. In particular, the exchange of information concerning pricing behaviour may give rise to competition law concerns irrespective of the fact that the parties operate under the same brand.
The Board’s approach confirms a broader principle that is well established in modern competition law: the decisive factor is not the existence of a common brand identity or a shared distribution structure, but whether the conduct in question affects the competitive relationship between independent undertakings.
Accordingly, when assessing communications between dealers of the same brand, the relevant inquiry should not focus on the formal structure of the distribution network, but on the nature of the information exchanged and its capacity to influence market behaviour. Where information exchanges are capable of reducing strategic uncertainty or facilitating a degree of coordination among competitors, competition law scrutiny is likely to follow.
The recent decisional practice of the Turkish Competition Board serves as a reminder that dealer networks are not insulated from the application of competition law principles. On the contrary, interactions among dealers may, depending on their content and context, be examined in much the same manner as communications between competing undertakings operating at the same level of the market.
Author
Sibel ÖZTÜRK, LL.M.
Partner | Attorney at Law
Erikel & Partners
Türkçe 