--- title: "Naspers — iFood and Mr D: exclusivity disputes and distinct platform remedies" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/naspers/ifood-exclusivity-and-delivery-platforms/ as_of: 2026-09-21 keywords: ["Naspers","Prosus","voting control","Nasbel","Keerom","Wheatfields","Takealot","PayU","Media24"] --- # Naspers — iFood and Mr D: exclusivity disputes and distinct platform remedies **Question.** Are all food-delivery concerns part of the same case? **Answer.** No. The Brazilian restaurant-exclusivity matter led to a 2023 Cade settlement, alongside a substantive market-definition response. South African delivery remedies arise from a different authority and inquiry. ## Restaurant restrictions, market-definition dispute and company response - Analysis: Rappi 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. [s-d275] [s-supp-review-ifood-tcc] - 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. ## Delivery-platform remedies use a separate market inquiry - Analysis: The 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. [s-d321] [s-d351] - 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. ## Sources - [s-d275] Media source · s-d275 - [s-supp-review-ifood-tcc] Cade settlement with iFood in the restaurant-exclusivity investigation, www.gov.br, 2023-02-08 - [s-d321] Media source · s-d321 - [s-d351] Media source · s-d351