Who controls the shelves controls the market
The state can pass laws, prescribe penalties, and prohibit unfair trade practices, but it cannot force a retailer to sell someone's goods on its shelves. This is where the main problem of the new law begins – how to prove pressure or retaliation if the retailer presents its moves as a legitimate business decision. If a supplier's assortment of 200 products drops to 50, or if a retailer sells it in 20 stores instead of 100, formally there is no delisting, but the economic effect can be almost the same. The new Law on Unfair Trade Practices, as expected, should bring more order to the relations between large retail chains and suppliers, but at the very beginning of its application, a fundamental question arises – can even the best law change market relations if the bargaining power of the parties is incomparable. Because, although direct pressure, commercial retaliation, and unilateral imposition of conditions are prohibited by regulations, in practice, according to some suppliers, pressure is often exerted much more subtly – through reduced assortment, short-term contract amendments, slowed cooperation, or demands for new price concessions. Formally, there is often no trace of this, but the economic consequences for suppliers can be serious.
