Rappi entered the delivery war between Keeta and 99food. The company asked to be part of the process opened in Cade, a body that regulates competition in Brazil. The company alleges, in the request, that 99food – which returned to operate in the country in the cities of São Paulo and Goiânia recently – would be including, in the contractual clauses with restaurants, the prohibition that establishments maintain business relationship with Rappi.
This controversy “banishment clause” was what motivated Keeta, from the Chinese group Meituan, to enter the representation in Cade against 99food. In the document, Rappi states that “the conduct of 99food consists of the adoption of restrictive contractual clauses with restaurants, through which the establishment is committed to not maintaining any commercial relationship with companies in the Meituan/Keeta group and, in some versions, also with Rappi, during the term of the contract,” the company said.
According to Rappi, the restriction would extend to all current and future branches and franchises, with a relevant contractual fine in case of non -compliance. Contracts, on the other hand, do not prevent the relationship with iFood, says Rappi. The same claim is made by Keeta, which intends to start operations in Brazil later this year.
Continues after advertising
For Rappi, represented by Cescon Barrieu office, exclusivity practices have already been recognized as harmful, which resulted in an agreement with iFood in 2023. “The repetition of these conduct by 99food, with more harmful to competition, would represent serious setback for the market and the entry of new players,” the company said. The company adds that the initiative can lead to the formation of an iFood – 99food duopoly.
In Cade’s process, 99food states that the expression “banishment clause” lacks legal support, constituting mere rhetorical. It also points out that any exclusives would be partial, temporary, legitimate and associated with financial investments in restaurants. The 99food also remembers, in one of the opinions, that has marginal participation in the delivery market, without market power to cause closing effects.
