Zomato’s Delivery Charges, Platform Fees, and Food Prices Not Unfair or Discriminatory: CCI [Read Order]

The Competition Commission of India ( CCI ) ruled that the delivery charges, platform fees, and food prices levied by Zomato do not amount to unfair or discriminatory conduct under the Competition Act, 2002.

Mr. Lalit Wadher, a senior citizen residing in Raipur, filed the information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, alleging that Zomato Ltd. was engaging in anti-competitive practices. The informant claimed that Zomato’s pricing structure was detrimental to consumer interest as food items were priced 20–30% higher than restaurant rates, and consumers were being burdened with additional charges such as delivery fees, packing charges, platform fees, and optional tips that were allegedly pre-selected and difficult to opt out from.

Big Changes in the Companies Act! Are You Updated? - Click Here

He further submitted that the packaging did not display item prices, and Zomato failed to ensure the quality or freshness of the delivered food. It was also alleged that Zomato did not disclose the timing of payments made to restaurants, thereby benefiting from treasury operations. The informant also claimed that Zomato was operating as part of a duopoly, restricting consumer choice.

Read More: Customs Dept Fails to issue SCN in Time: Delhi HC Directs Release of Gold Seized from Minor at IGI Airport [Read Order]

Upon examination, the Commission observed that the informant had not pointed to any specific violation of the Competition but had raised concerns that could be examined under Section 4, which relates to abuse of dominant position.

Big Changes in the Companies Act! Are You Updated? - Click Here

The Commission found no merit in the allegation that Zomato’s charges were unfair or discriminatory. It observed that the additional charges levied were clearly indicated and did not reflect exploitative pricing. On the issue of tipping, the Commission clarified that the tip was not mandatory and that the option to opt out was plainly available to users.

Read More: Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules Inapplicable Where there is No Sale or Captive Consumption: CESTAT in BSNL case

The Commission further observed that the concerns regarding food quality, packaging labels, and timing of restaurant payments did not raise any competition law issues. On the claim that Zomato operated as a duopoly, the Commission held that the informant failed to provide any evidence or data to substantiate the claim of lack of competition in the market.

Big Changes in the Companies Act! Are You Updated? - Click Here

Finding no prima facie case of contravention of the Competition Act, the Commission declined to define a relevant market and dismissed the information under Section 26(2) of the Act.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates