Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Judicial Dispute Heats Up in the Delivery Market. Keeta Files Complaint Against 99Food for Allegedly Attempting to Create a Duopoly. Learn More About the Conflict Affecting Consumers.
The delivery app market in Brazil, one of the hottest and most competitive in the world, has just become the stage for an intense judicial dispute. In a move that could reshape competition in the sector, the app Keeta is Taking Legal Action Against 99Food, making allegations of anticompetitive practices.
The lawsuit, which questions the market strategies of one of the giants in the segment, raises a crucial debate about competition freedom and the future of delivery services in the country.
Keeta’s complaints point to an alleged effort by the Chinese delivery app to stifle new competitors and consolidate a “duopoly,” limiting consumer choice and undermining the principles of a fair market.
-
A R$ 700 million mega-project in Ribeirão Preto promises to transform healthcare in the region with a massive new emergency unit, nearly 400 beds right from the start, and 24-hour care for severe cases.
-
Trump gives a deadline, but no relief: Trump’s tariffs remain alive, threaten Brazil, and put Lula against the wall in tense negotiations in the US.
-
Itajaí has a shortage of 15,800 homes, 52,000 families ready to buy, and a residential development sold 70% in just six months.
-
New Pix rule changes oversight and affects the functioning of the financial system by suspending, for 97 days, mandatory processes against banks and fintechs; the Central Bank’s measure is valid between February and May 2026 and impacts daily billion-dollar operations.
The Formation of an Alleged Duopoly: The Accusations from Keeta
The legal document filed by Keeta is incisive and direct. The startup accuses 99Food of adopting aggressive and unfair strategies to dominate the market, making it practically impenetrable for new competitors.
According to Keeta, the contracts that 99Food has been proposing to restaurants and partner establishments have a clear and perverse goal: “to seek to create a duopoly between iFood and 99Food, establishing an artificial barrier to new entrants like Keeta”.
The accusation suggests that instead of competing in an open field, 99Food would be erecting walls to protect its market share, in a tacit partnership with its main rival.
For Keeta, the agreements proposed to establishments do not follow the norms of a fair market.
The accusations of anticompetitive practices from Keeta assert categorically that 99Food’s contracts “are not in compliance with the law and competition rules, as 99Food claims. They are abusive and anticompetitive, and attempt to close the market to only two competitors, limiting consumer choice and undermining the principles of a free and fair market.”
This approach, if confirmed, would have a direct impact on the end consumer, who would face fewer platform options and, consequently, fewer promotions, offers, and price competitiveness.
Market Tactics: Advance Payments and Exclusivity
Keeta details the alleged tactic used by 99Food to ensure the exclusivity of establishments. To encourage the signing of contracts that, in Keeta’s view, are unfair, 99Food is reportedly offering “high advance payments” to partners.
This “pre-payment” strategy would be a way to bind restaurants to the platform, creating a financial dependency that prevents them from joining new apps.
This practice is seen by Keeta as a maneuver to hinder the entry of smaller competitors, who would not have sufficient capital to replicate the same strategy.
The result, according to the accusation, would be a limitation on the freedom of choice of establishments and, by extension, of consumers.
When restricted to just two major platforms, restaurants and bars would lose negotiating power over commission rates and service conditions, which could lead to cost pass-throughs to the end customer.
The Context of the Delivery Market in Brazil and the Implications of the Lawsuit
The judicial dispute between Keeta and 99Food fits into a broader context of consolidation and monopolization of the delivery market in Brazil.
For years, iFood has dominated most of this market, and the entry of new players, like 99Food, was seen as a way to rebalance the scale and bring more competitiveness.
However, Keeta’s accusation suggests that, instead of creating an environment of fair competition, the new dispute may be leading to the formation of an even more closed scenario.
The action taken by Keeta seeks not only to protect its own interests but also, according to the company, to defend the health of the market as a whole.
The court’s decision on the case could have a ripple effect, serving as a precedent for other disputes and forcing delivery apps to rethink their partnership strategies with establishments.
For consumers, the ideal would be a free and fair market, with the possibility of choosing from a variety of apps competing to offer the best service, best prices, and greatest convenience.
The future of the dispute between Keeta and 99Food, therefore, will dictate the pace of innovation and competition in one of the most dynamic sectors of Brazil’s digital economy.
-
1 person reacted to this.