CADE further investigates 99Food, but dismisses preventive measure

On 02 September, the Tribunal of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) decided to forward the 99Food case to the Office of the Superintendent General (SG) for further investigations into alleged anticompetitive practices linked to clauses adopted by the food delivery service in contracts signed with restaurants.

The agency also decided on the appeal regarding the request for a preventive measure made by Keeta Delivery Brazil Ltda. Although the provision was denied, which upheld the previous decision, it may be re-examined if new evidence is found.

Further investigations

The case was launched in March 2026, based on a complaint filed by Keeta regarding an alleged antitrust violation in the contractual clauses adopted by 99Food.

The former claimed that the respondent was imposing restrictions in contracts with restaurants, such as limitations on contracting with rival platforms. In some cases, they were associated with financial incentives. According to Keeta, these clauses could hinder the entry and expansion of new competitors in the market of online food delivery platforms.

In June, the SG dismissed the case. Later, the Tribunal of CADE called up the case to find out whether the findings of the investigations were enough to mitigate the competition concerns identified, among others.

Mr Diogo Thomson, interim president of CADE and rapporteur of the case, concluded that there are matters yet to be discussed before a final decision.

The actual impacts of the clauses on the restaurants and their ability to operate simultaneously in different platforms, a practice known as multi-homing, are among the issues to be examined. The SG is supposed to obtain information directly from the restaurants and restaurant chains potentially submitted to restrictions and deepen the analysis on different contractual arrangements, including their term and scope, the incentives offered, and penalties provided.

The evidentiary stage will also examine the competition relevance of the restaurants subject by the clauses and update the analysis on the competitive structure and dynamics of the food delivery market. In this regard, Keeta's entry in the market, and the re-entry and expansion of 99Food, and the practices of platforms such as iFood and Rappi will be considered.

When applicable, the parameters of the Cease and Desist Agreement between CADE and iFood, and the evidence produced in other investigations and initiatives of sector monitoring, will also be considered.

Additionally, the decision determines that the documents presented by 99Food on the alleged contractual clauses adopted by Keeta must be analysed. If the fact-finding identifies practices that may generate similar competition concerns, the SG can take the applicable legal measures.

Appeal and preventive measure

Keeta filed an appeal related to the request for preventive measure in the course of the investigation. Among other measures, Keeta sought to obtain the suspension of clauses it classified as "banning" ones and to prevent the execution of similar contracts.

When initiating the Administrative Inquiry, the SG had stayed the analysis of this request pending the outcome of a related lawsuit. However, according to the rapporteur, although the decision had formally postponed the analysis, its practical effects were equivalent to a denial of the measure, which is why Keeta's appeal was entertained by the Tribunal.

Interim President Thomson concluded that there are insufficient elements to grant the preventive measure on the merits. The decision considered the existing uncertainties regarding the clauses under investigation, the market structure and dynamics, and the contractual practices adopted by the participants.

For this reason, the Tribunal has denied the appeal and upheld the denial of the preventive measure.

In accordance with the terms set forth in the rapporteur’s vote, the decision is not a final conclusion on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the conduct under investigation. As the matter proceeds, new evidence may justify a reassessment regarding the need to adopt preventive measures.

Similarly, the ongoing Administrative Enquiry does not imply there was an antitrust violation. The complementary investigation aims to gather additional information to allow for a safer assessment of these practices and their potential effects on competition in the market of online food delivery platforms.

Access Case No. 08700.008408/2025-19

Access Appeal No. 08700.003233/2026-26