Nexans & Sonepar Fined Over Exclusive Cable Import Deal in French Overseas Markets

Key Takeaways

• Illegal Exclusivity: Nexans and Sonepar operated a de facto exclusive import arrangement for electrical cables across French overseas territories, despite contractual language stating otherwise.
• Clear Evidence of Intent: Internal documents and communications showed both parties understood the exclusivity and its prohibited nature.
• Whistleblower-Led Case: The investigation marks the first enforcement action by the French competition authority based on a protected whistleblower report.
• Lurel Act Breach: The conduct violated French law banning exclusive import agreements in overseas territories since 2013.
• €6.5 Million Fine Imposed: The penalty, split between the groups, is the largest issued to date for exclusive import practices.

Deep Dive

France’s competition authority, the Autorité de la concurrence, has fined Nexans and Sonepar a combined €6.5 million after concluding the two groups maintained what it described as a de facto exclusive import arrangement for electrical cables across France’s overseas territories.

The arrangement ran from May 2015 to November 2023 and covered Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Réunion, and Mayotte. On paper, the distribution agreements between the companies described Sonepar as a non-exclusive distributor. In practice, the regulator found something very different.

According to the decision, Nexans granted Sonepar exclusive import rights across the overseas territories, effectively shutting out competing distributors.

The Autorité pointed to a body of internal documents and communications showing that both sides regularly described the relationship as exclusive. In one example cited in the case, a Nexans internal call acknowledged that Sonepar held “de facto exclusivity” in Réunion, noting that it was prohibited but nonetheless existed.

The exclusivity was not just theoretical. The authority found it was actively enforced across multiple markets. Nexans directed customers to Sonepar’s local subsidiaries, offered more favorable commercial terms to Sonepar than to competitors, and in some cases refused to supply rival distributors altogether.

Customs data reinforced the point. Records from 2021 showed that Sonepar was the only distributor importing Nexans products into the overseas territories that year.

A Ban That Was Already in Place

What makes the case particularly straightforward from a legal standpoint is that the conduct was not operating in a grey area.

France’s 2012 law on economic regulation in overseas territories, commonly known as the Lurel Act, has prohibited exclusive import agreements in these regions since March 2013. The law was introduced in part to address high costs of living, with exclusive supply arrangements seen as a factor limiting competition and driving prices higher.

The Autorité concluded that the arrangement between Nexans and Sonepar directly breached the prohibition. The investigation combined several familiar enforcement tools. It drew on work by the Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control, information from a whistleblower, and evidence gathered through dawn raids.

The whistleblower element also stands out. This is the first time the Autorité has sanctioned conduct based on information provided under its whistleblower framework, signaling a more active role for internal reporting in competition enforcement.

Neither Nexans nor Sonepar challenged the findings. By accepting the facts, both groups qualified for a settlement procedure, which allows fines to be agreed within a range proposed by the regulator. The final penalties amounted to €3 million for Nexans group companies and €3.5 million for Sonepar group companies.

While not among the largest antitrust fines overall, the Autorité noted that this is the highest penalty it has imposed in a case involving exclusive import rights.

A Straightforward Case With Broader Implications

In some respects, the decision is unusually direct. There was a legal prohibition in place, internal acknowledgment of the conduct, and evidence showing how the arrangement operated in practice.

But the implications stretch beyond this specific market.

The case underscores how distribution strategies, especially in geographically constrained markets, can quickly move from commercial convenience to competition risk. It also highlights the increasing role of whistleblowers in surfacing conduct that might otherwise remain buried within routine business arrangements.

For companies operating across group structures, there is another reminder embedded in the outcome. Liability did not stop with local entities. Parent companies were also sanctioned, reinforcing that oversight, and exposure, extends across the corporate chain when these kinds of arrangements are in play.

In the end, this was not a particularly complex case. But it is precisely that simplicity, backed by clear evidence, that made it difficult to defend.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.