4 ms·
Totally different companies now. They do have an agreement to not compete in most countries though. The only countries both are present are Germany and the Unit
by mdhen 8y ago
Totally different companies now. They do have an agreement to not compete in most countries though. The only countries both are present are Germany and the United States.
- baddox 8y agoInteresting. Aren’t such deals usually banned as anticompetitive?
- halter73 8y agoI would think so, but if the non-compete deal was made as part voluntarily splitting up the company, I could understand the argument that there's no net harm to the consumer. In my experience in the US, grocery stores have way more competition than stores in most other retail sectors. It's also one of the few retail sectors in the US where regional brands tend to outcompete the national brands. I'm not sure the main cause of that, but I'd be interested to find out.
- peteretep 8y ago> Aren’t such deals usually banned as anticompetitive? I wonder who would bring the suit if they're divvying up the world country by country. Who has jurisdiction? The EU? Giving this marginally more thought, maybe the agreement is simply on use of the shared brand name, and that's what the agreement covers? I note both are active in the US, but under different names. That might just be enough to keep regulators happy.
- sjwright 8y agoOnly if the deal had any chance of hurting consumers, which it does not. Customers in Europe have many supermarket chains to pick from, including a near-perfect clone of Aldi called Lidl. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidl Besides, why should the Government force a company to open stores where they have chosen not to?