In yet another chapter of the dispute in the Brazilian food delivery market, Keeta returned to the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade) against 99Food. In a new petition this Thursday, the company asks the body that regulates competition in the country to prohibit its rival from entering into exclusive contracts with restaurants. The new argument is that, in an interview with GLOBO, a competitor’s executive had “confessed” to anti-competitive measures to block the rival’s entry into the sector.
The delivery app from the Chinese group Meituan — which is expected to begin operations in Brazil at the end of the year — filed a lawsuit with Cade against 99Food alleging that the company blocks its entry into the market by signing exclusive contracts with restaurants providing for the prohibition of its hiring, which it calls a “ban clause”.
Also read:
FREE TOOL
XP simulator
Find out in 1 minute how much your money can yield
The fight also takes place in the courts. This week, the São Paulo Court vetoed the exclusivity clauses imposed by 99Food on partner restaurants in exchange for benefits such as more attractive rates, but which prohibit partner establishments from operating with Keeta.
In an interview with GLOBO last Tuesday about the defeat in court, 99’s Communications director, Bruno Rossini, argued that the company’s conduct “is legal and is within all regulatory practices”. He also argued that exclusivity contracts (partial or not) are important to “break the inertia” and stimulate competition in the food delivery market in the country, which has 80% of operations dominated by iFood, according to industry estimates.
— We are protecting the space we conquered. If we don’t do this, there will be a “shock” of companies entering the market to compete for the 20% that are not from iFood — he assessed
For Keeta’s lawyers, however, the executive’s speech is a “clear confession of the anti-competitive object of the restriction”.
“99Food confesses, in all words, that the purpose of the clauses is to prevent “potential new entrants” or “a company entering the market” from being able to ‘dispute the 20% that are not from iFood’. In other words, 99Food aims to become the only competitor with a viable scale compared to iFood, eliminating the possibility of a third company competing in the market effectively”, argue the lawyers to Where.
‘Semi-exclusivity’
Controlled by the Chinese group DiDi, a global mobility giant, 99 returned to the food delivery market this year, after leaving the sector in 2023. The recovery began in Goiânia and São Paulo, and arrived in Rio de Janeiro on the 15th.
Continues after advertising
At the platform’s launch event in Rio, the general director of 99 in Brazil, Simeng Wang, explained that the company offers partner establishments contracts with or without exclusivity, for up to two years, with rates and commissions that vary.
Furthermore, there is a model called “semi-exclusive”, in which the restaurant accesses more advantageous rates, but continues to operate with iFood, which dominates 80% of the market. However, “it chooses not to work with potential new entrants”, according to the executive. This is the object of Keeta’s questioning.
In the document, Keeta’s lawyers also ask Cade to order 99Food to present the list of restaurants to which it offered exclusivity clauses and which accepted the proposal.
Continues after advertising
To GLOBO, Rossini stated that the company does not release numbers, but that “only hundreds” of restaurants are under semi-exclusivity clauses, which represents a “very small” percentage in the universe of establishments registered on the platform.
