On 24 April 2025, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) announced a landmark decision imposing fines totaling over €11.2 million on three major pharmaceutical companies for their involvement in a long-running anti-competitive arrangement concerning the placement of over-the-counter (OTC) medicines in Belgian pharmacies. This decision is the first of its kind in the EU, setting a precedent for future competition law enforcement in category management practices.
Background: The SMAN Project and Category Management
This matter has centred on the so-called Space Management Project (SMAN), a category management initiative that operated for more than 16 years until 23 May 2016, which was when the BCA started its dawn raids at the premises of the three pharmaceutical companies and the third party service provider, Promomed SA, to which the SMAN project had been externalised.
Category management is a commercial practice in which a retailer or distributor entrusts the organisation of an entire product category – such as OTC medicines – to one or more suppliers ("Category Captains"). Typically, the aim is to optimise the assortment, placement, and promotion of products within that category to improve sales and efficiency, often using data-driven planograms (shelf layouts) to guide how products are displayed. In principle, category management is intended to benefit both retailers and consumers by making product selection more rational and consumer-friendly.
However, under the SMAN project, the three companies – acting as 'founding partners' – coordinated the organisation of OTC medicine shelves in a large number of Belgian pharmacies in a way that 'crossed the line' into anti-competitive conduct. The companies jointly designed and implemented planograms that systematically favoured their own products, excluded or disadvantaged competitors (including so-called 'renters' who were subject to additional hurdles and given less favourable shelf space), and closely monitored compliance by pharmacies. The internal 'Golden Rules' ensured that founding partners' products received more facings and central shelf positions, while renters' products were relegated to the sides of shelves and had to meet stricter conditions to be included. Non-participating competitors were often excluded entirely from the planograms. The BCA found that these arrangements were not based on objective criteria or consumer benefit, but rather on the founding partners' commercial interests.
A Novel Infringement
What makes this case particularly noteworthy is its novelty. Unlike the more familiar forms of competition law infringements such as price-fixing or market-sharing cartels, the SMAN project involved a sophisticated and covert manipulation of category management tools. With this project, the founding partners ensured that their products received the most prominent shelf space, imposed additional hurdles for rival products (such as requiring renters' new products to be on the market for at least a year before being eligible for shelf space), and even excluded certain competitors altogether. The BCA found that these practices constituted an infringement of both Belgian and EU competition law, as they replaced normal competition with coordinated conduct. This decision sets an important precedent, as until now there has been little European case law clarifying the boundaries of lawful category management.
The Fine
In recognition of the companies' participation in the infringement and their agreement to settle, the BCA has imposed the following fines: €4,771,584 on Johnson & Johnson Consumer NV, €1,664,721.76 on Boehringer Ingelheim SComm, and €4,812,974.72 on Haleon Belgium NV. The fines were calculated based on the companies' Belgian turnover from OTC medicines, the seriousness and duration of the infringement, and the need for deterrence. The final amounts imposed also reflect a reduction of 10% for settlement, as well as a 20% reduction granted due to the novelty of the infringement and a 5% reduction given the investigation's protracted duration of nearly 10 years.
Decisions's Significance
This decision serves as a clear warning that competition law risks are not confined to the 'usual suspects' of price-fixing or bid-rigging cartels and that the BCA will not shy away from penalising other (more novel) practices. The BCA's decision is to be welcomed as Category management is a common commercial practice in which no decisional practice offering guidance has so far existed. Category management agreements are not prohibited in themselves. They may, however, be anti-competitive and thus prohibited under competition laws; for example, if the appointed Category Captain(s) excludes or hinders competing products, facilitates collusion between competing distributors or there is the exchange of sensitive information between suppliers. Category management agreements should be carefully drafted and implemented to ensure that decisions on product placement remain with the distributor, a Category Captain cannot exclude or disadvantage its competitors and the exchange of sensitive information between competing suppliers or retailers is avoided.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
