The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) gave a decision, on 11 October 2016, concerning the customer bonus scheme of S Group, a major grocery retailer in Finland. The FCCA determined that the scheme did not restrict competition, and concluded its investigation.
12.10.2016
The FCCA Clarifies the Assessment Criteria of Customer Bonus Schemes
Related services
The FCCA decision clarifies which factors are relevant when assessing the effects of customer bonus schemes of dominant companies on effective competition.
Customer Bonus Schemes are an Accepted and Common Means of Competition
The matter concerns the S Bonus scheme where bonuses are paid to a customer based on his purchases from a dominant company or its scheme partners. According to the FCCA’s decision, this kind of customer bonus scheme is to be assessed as a so-called conditional discount. Conditional discounts are a common form of price competition, which companies can employ to promote the demand for their products and to benefit their consumers. The FCCA decision states that conditional discounts granted by a dominant company can also have beneficial effects from the consumers’ perspective. A discount mechanism applied by a dominant company may, however, have a loyalty-enhancing effect which can, in some circumstances, lead to anticompetitive foreclosure effects in the market.
Assessment of the Anticompetitive Foreclosure Effects
The assessment of the impacts of a customer bonus scheme is based on an overall assessment. The application of a scheme may amount to abuse of a dominant position if it prevents the expansion or entry of competitors that are as efficient as the dominant company or hinders the possibility of such competitors to fulfil a part of the purchase needs of individual customers.
According to the FCCA, this so-called as-efficient competitor test is, however, only one of the tools that can be used in assessing the effects of the discounts. Besides the costs, the FCCA also takes into account the following factors in its overall assessment:
Latest news
Latest references
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026
Plastep – Sale of share capital
We advised Plastep Oy and its shareholders in the sale of the entire share capital of the company to FinnProfiles Oy. The acquisition strengthens FinnProfiles’ position as a Nordic expert in sealing and insulation solutions and expands the company’s expertise in the manufacture of plastic products and technical components. Plastep, founded in 2001 and based in South Savo, is a contract manufacturer specialising in the design and production of demanding and technical plastic components, with a turnover of EUR 6.5 million.
Case published 18.2.2026