Heineken is taking legal action against the Jumbo supermarket chain over a significant reduction in beer orders, which the brewer claims amounts to a boycott. This legal battle highlights the complexities and tensions in the retail and brewing industries, particularly regarding pricing.
According to a report by Dutch newspaper FD, Heineken has filed summary proceedings to demand that Jumbo cease its boycott, which has reportedly been in effect since the end of March 2025. The brewer claims that Jumbo has slashed its orders by a staggering 78% during this period, leading to empty shelves in many Jumbo stores.
Heineken asserts that the supermarket chain's decision to drastically reduce orders is a direct consequence of ongoing negotiations with the international purchasing organization Everest. This organization represents multiple supermarket chains, including Jumbo, and has been pushing for lower prices from Heineken, which it considers excessively high compared to prices in other European countries.
Jumbo, on its part, contends that Heineken's pricing is out of line, particularly when compared to other European supermarkets. The supermarket chain's lawyer, Jeroen Bedaux, stated in court that online grocery retailer Picnic pays less for Heineken products than Jumbo does. This disparity in pricing has prompted Jumbo to limit its purchases in an effort to keep prices low for its customers.
Heineken has responded by arguing that the price differences are justified due to local costs, such as wages, raw materials, and regulations. Heineken lawyer Thom Beukers emphasized that these factors contribute to varying prices across Europe. "Heineken has 50 breweries in Europe, and there are differences in pay, raw material prices, and rules everywhere," he explained.
In court, Jumbo's purchasing chief, Wibo van Wijk, clarified that the supermarket has not completely stopped ordering Heineken products but has merely reduced its orders as part of a broader strategy to negotiate better prices. "This is a purely commercial disagreement," he stated.
The situation escalated to the courtroom after both parties failed to reach an agreement during negotiations earlier this week. The judge heard arguments from both sides on May 8, 2025, and is expected to deliver a ruling on May 22, 2025.
This legal dispute is notable not only for the parties involved but also because it is relatively rare for conflicts between major retailers and brands to end up in court. Typically, these disputes are resolved through negotiation rather than litigation. However, Heineken believes that the stakes are high enough to warrant judicial intervention, citing a long-standing partnership with Jumbo that they feel is being jeopardized.
Heineken's claims about the impact of Jumbo's reduced orders are corroborated by the brewer's recent quarterly figures, which indicate falling sales in Europe due to challenging price negotiations. The brewer has pointed to this decline as a reason for its decision to pursue legal action.
As the court date approaches, both companies are facing increased pressure to resolve their differences. The outcome could have significant implications not only for their partnership but also for the broader industry, particularly as other retailers observe how this case unfolds.
In the context of the broader market, this dispute reflects ongoing tensions between suppliers and retailers regarding pricing strategies. Earlier in 2025, similar tensions resulted in empty coffee shelves at Jumbo and Albert Heijn due to a pricing dispute with Douwe Egberts, highlighting that such conflicts are not uncommon in the retail sector.
As the legal proceedings continue, both Heineken and Jumbo will be keenly watching the court's ruling. The decision could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly in an industry where price negotiations are critical to maintaining competitive advantage.
In summary, Heineken's lawsuit against Jumbo underscores the complexities of supplier-retailer relationships, particularly in the context of pricing. With the court set to rule on May 22, 2025, all eyes will be on the outcome to see how it shapes the future of this long-standing partnership.
