Category management under increased antitrust scrutiny
European competition authorities have started to examine how so-called category management or category captain roles may influence market dynamics and potentially restrict competition. Recent enforcement activity reflects a shift towards investigating and addressing more subtle forms of potential foreclosure in retail and distribution settings.
Background – efficiencies and risks with category management
Category management is a commercial practice in which a retailer entrusts a supplier with supporting — or sometimes leading — the management and marketing of an entire product category. This often extends not only to the supplier’s own products but also to those of its competitors, with potential influence over assortment selection, shelf placement, promotional strategies and planogram design.
The European Commission’s (“Commission”) Vertical Guidelines recognise that such arrangements often generate efficiencies and will generally not raise competition concerns. However, risks may arise where a supplier in a category-captain role can limit or disadvantage rivals’ distribution, or where the arrangement facilitates coordination between competing suppliers.
While European enforcement in this area has historically been limited, recent developments show that authorities are increasingly willing to scrutinise how category-management tools are used in practice.
The Belgian example: fines imposed for category management under Article 101 TFEU
In April 2025, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) fined three pharmaceutical companies over EUR 11.2 million for a long-running category-management arrangement concerning over the counter (OTC) medicines in Belgian pharmacies. The arrangement, known as the Space Management Project (SMAN), operated for more than 15 years and involved jointly designed planograms used across a wide network of pharmacies.
The BCA found that the companies, effectively acting as category captains, collectively influenced shelf-space allocation in a way that favoured their own products, imposed additional hurdles on certain competitors and excluded some rivals entirely.
The companies’ measures had encompassed:
– exclusion of (products of) competitors in the design and implementation of the planograms used for the placement of OTC medicines in pharmacies;
– favouring of their own products in the design and implementation of the planograms in question;
– monitoring of the SMAN agreements and of the implementation of the planograms in the relevant pharmacies.
The three companies entered into a settlement with the BCA and thereby received a 10% reduction of the fines. The BCA stressed the novelty of the infringement and noted the limited European precedent on the competition law boundaries of category management. In addition, there were reductions due to the novelty of the infringement.
The decision illustrates that category-management arrangements can infringe Article 101 TFEU where coordination between suppliers influences a retailer’s assortment or placement decisions.
A new investigation launched by the Commission under Article 102 TFEU
In November 2025, the Commission opened a formal investigation into whether a supplier in the energy drinks sector may have used incentives and a category-management role to restrict competition in the “off-trade” channel (e.g., supermarkets and petrol stations).
The investigation concerns suspected conduct affecting at least the Netherlands, although the Commission will assess the extent of any broader geographic relevance. At this stage, the Commission has not taken a position on whether any infringement has occurred. The decision to initiate a formal investigation means only that the Commission will now examine the practices in question in detail.
The Commission is assessing two practices:
– the use of financial or non-financial incentives that may have encouraged retailers to delist or disadvantage competing products; and
– the alleged misuse of a category-management role to influence assortment and shelf-placement decisions to the detriment of rivals.
This marks the first time the Commission has opened a formal abuse-of-dominance investigation centred specifically on category-management conduct, reflecting a growing interest in how influence over visibility, prominence and access to key retail channels can affect competition.
Comments and implications
Category management remains a legitimate commercial practice. However, the recent Belgian decision imposing fines for anti-competitive behaviour and the Commission’s new alleged abuse of dominance investigation show that authorities are increasingly attentive to how such arrangements operate in practice, particularly in concentrated markets or where suppliers enjoy a strong market position. As enforcement evolves, these cases are likely to help define clearer boundaries for compliant category-management structures. It is also essential that companies assess how to deal with competitive sensitive information when acting as a category captain.
Companies involved with category management positions may want to review their practices to ensure their compliance with competition law. Our competition law team is experienced in working in the retail sector, as well as advising in both alleged cartel and abuse of dominance cases and providing support during antitrust investigations. Please contact Delphi if your company needs assistance in reviewing policies surrounding cooperation with other companies or if there is a risk that the company holds a dominant position and needs strategic advice.