Zomato's Delivery, Platform, and Food Charges Not Unfair or Discriminatory: CCI

New Delhi : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed allegations against Zomato Ltd. regarding unfair pricing and abuse of dominant market position. The Commission ruled that the company's delivery fees, platform charges, and food prices are neither discriminatory nor exploitative under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The case was brought forward by Mr. Lalit Wadher, a senior citizen, who filed information with the CCI accusing Zomato of anti-competitive practices. Wadher alleged that Zomato was charging significantly higher prices—reportedly 20–30% above normal rates—along with additional charges such as platform fees, delivery costs, packaging charges, donations, and tips. According to the informant, the app lacked options to remove or avoid some of these charges.

Further, the informant alleged that Zomato, operating alongside another major food delivery app, functions as part of a duopoly, enabling monopolistic behavior and leaving consumers with little choice. He also expressed dissatisfaction over the increase in platform fees from Rs. 5.00 to Rs. 6.00, asserting that no service improvements accompanied the hike. Complaints regarding food quality, he claimed, were deflected to restaurants, with Zomato denying responsibility, despite being the payment recipient and delivery facilitator.

However, the CCI bench, comprising Chairperson Ms. Ravneet Kaur and Members Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad, and Mr. Deepak Anurag, found no evidence of unfair or discriminatory pricing by Zomato. The Commission clarified that charges such as platform fees, food prices, and delivery fees are a standard part of Zomato’s service model and do not constitute abuse of dominance.

Regarding optional charges like donations and tips, the Commission noted that clear opt-out options are available and prominently displayed in the app interface. It also found no merit in concerns regarding the food’s edibility or the absence of printed prices on packaging, stating these do not fall under the purview of competition law.

Concluding that no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position was established, the Commission closed the matter and ruled out the need for a formal investigation.