Correction: payment but no guilt admission Nikon distributor

This article refers to the blog post Nikon distributors fined R300,000, which was published on this website on 8 December 2016, but has subsequently been taken down. It has come to our attention that there were factual inaccuracies in the post, which we wish to correct.

There was no finding that Premium Brand engaged in a prohibited practice. Premium Brand agreed to pay R300,500 without admission in settlement of litigation initiated against it by a third party. We apologise to Premium Brand for any harm caused.

The Competition Tribunal said previously:

"Premium Brand has agreed not to engage in resale price maintenance… Premium Brand admitted that it coordinated the advertisement of the Nikon Brand by coordinating prices at which the Nikon brand was advertised in a manner which may have had the effect of contravening section 5 (2)."

Bowmans lawyer Sandhya Naidoo (pictured), who represents Premium Brand, says that retailers are free to set their own prices and does not see fault in the company's actions. "We strongly believe that Premium Brand did not contravene the Act," she said.

According to the lawyer, a third party laid a complaint with the Commission alleging that Premium Brand did not allow retailers to sell Nikon products at a markup of not less than five percent. No finding was made in this regard "as the evidence from retailers made it clear that there had been no contravention of the Competition Act". Naidoo said: "Retailers consider themselves free to set their prices as they wished and there were no repercussions if they deviated from the requests made by Premium Brand in relation to advertised prices."