Naspers — iFood and Mr D: exclusivity disputes and distinct platform remedies

analysisRappi and other market participants challenged iFood’s restaurant-exclusivity arrangements in Brazil. A March 2021 interim measure barred new exclusivity contracts while Cade examined the matter. In August 2022 the challengers alleged that formal or indirect incentives continued to hinder competition and sought a wider prohibition. ^{1 2}

qualification

The competitors’ cited 80% share concerned their asserted market definition; iFood disputed equating the app market with all food delivery. An interim measure and an allegation of non-compliance are not a final finding of every alleged practice.

response

Bloisi said iFood considered its conduct lawful, had renewed existing arrangements rather than adding new ones, and had reduced the exclusive-restaurant proportion from 11% to 8%. Other iFood executives cited multi-platform restaurant chains, logistics investment and orders placed directly through restaurants or messaging apps. They disputed informal exclusivity and said they supplied data to Cade weekly.

outcome

On 8 February 2023, Cade agreed a 54-month cessation commitment with iFood, monitored by a trustee. It barred exclusivity with brands of at least 30 restaurants and capped smaller-brand exclusivity nationally at 25% of platform GMV and locally at 8% of active restaurants in cities above 500,000 residents. It also restricted price-parity clauses and restraints on competing platforms. This negotiated settlement is the later outcome of the investigation, not a criminal conviction or a blanket clearance of the earlier allegations.

analysisThe South African online-platform inquiry also examined restaurant bargaining power and food-delivery charges. Its 2023 findings said independent restaurants paid higher commissions than chains and faced a poor trade-off between fees and service levels. It called for improved terms and transparency and for franchisees to be free to list on competing local delivery platforms. ^{3 4}

qualification

The inquiry included Mr D and Uber Eats as distinct operators. The fact that both appeared in an inquiry does not establish an ownership, partnership or collusion relationship between them.

response

Takealot’s earlier response emphasised competition from restaurants’ own delivery and takeaway channels and the economic opportunities created by the sector. The separate Uber Eats response in the final-report article is not a Mr D statement.