The food delivery market has occupied a prominent position on CADE’s agenda. In addition to being the subject of a study recently published by the Department of Economic Studies, the authority is currently conducting an important investigation arising from a complaint filed by Keeta against 99Food, two of iFood’s main competitors in Brazil. The case may become a relevant precedent on the application of the legal presumption of dominant position, which is currently associated with the 20% market share threshold, as well as on its use in the analysis of conduct in digital markets.
On 6.25.2026, the last day of General Superintendent Alexandre Barreto’s term of office, an order was issued determining the dismissal of the administrative inquiry that investigated 99Food’s alleged conduct in the Brazilian food delivery market. The case, however, took a new turn when CADE’s Acting President, Commissioner Diogo Thomson, proposed the review of the General Superintendence’s (“GS”) decision.
The investigation began following a complaint filed by Keeta, a delivery platform belonging to the Chinese group Meituan, which alleged the existence of contracts entered into between 99Food and restaurants containing financial incentives associated with clauses capable of restricting the performance of competitors, especially Keeta itself and Rappi. In Keeta’s view, despite 99Food’s lack of a dominant position, such practices could hinder the entry and expansion of new players in the food delivery market due to market dynamics, especially: (i) strong presence of network effects (more restaurants attract more consumers, more consumers attract more restaurants), (ii) relevance of scale, and (iii) the fact that competition occurs “for the market“, especially when there is an incumbent as strong as iFood. In this context, any restriction on competitors’ access to restaurants could significantly affect competition, which is why Keeta requested the investigation of a potential violation of the economic order.
In deciding to dismiss the investigation, the GS acknowledged that clauses of this nature could, in theory, even raise competition concerns, but concluded that 99Food’s low market share (below 20%) would be sufficient to rule out market power and, therefore, its ability to produce the alleged anticompetitive effects. Thus, the GS considered that there was insufficient evidence to establish a possible abuse of dominance or justify the continuation of the investigation.
The proposal for review indicates, however, that the debate has not yet been settled. In his order, the Acting President highlighted the need to assess whether the investigation conducted by the GS was sufficient to dispel the competition concerns initially identified, especially in view of the characteristics and competitive dynamics of the food delivery platform market.
If the review is accepted, the Tribunal may either uphold the dismissal or order additional investigative measures. The decision may also provide important guidance on how CADE intends to interpret and apply the legal presumption of dominance – traditionally viewed as a prerequisite for establishing certain unilateral anticompetitive conduct – in digital markets marked by intense competitive dynamics and strong network effects.
Want to understand how these topics impact your business? Our Competition and Antitrust team is ready to help you navigate them.
