Anti-Competitive Agreements In Food Delivery Platforms
- IJLLR Journal
- Nov 6, 2025
- 2 min read
Manasvi Rastogi, BBA LLB (Hons.), Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
This research delves into the anti-competitive agreements prevalent in the Indian food delivery sector, with a special focus on dominant platforms such as Zomato and Swiggy. These companies hold an overwhelming majority of the market share, which has granted them the leverage to impose contractual terms that can distort fair competition. Central to the study are allegations levied by the National Restaurant Association of India, which accused these platforms of using practices like exclusivity clauses, price-parity or most- favoured nation clauses, high commissions, and data masking, all of which potentially limit restaurant autonomy and consumer choice. The Competition Commission of India’s investigation found credible evidence suggesting these contracts stifled rivalry, inflated final prices, and restricted the freedom of partner restaurants to negotiate terms or use multiple delivery aggregators.
The paper situates these Indian developments within a broader international context, comparing local findings with regulatory trends in the European Union and United States. What emerges is a clear pattern: unchecked contractual constraints in digital platform markets can entrench monopolistic positions, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers. The research emphasizes that while food delivery apps offer clear efficiency benefits and convenience, their unchecked dominance risks reducing competition and driving up prices. It further highlights the pressing need for policy innovation: from distinguishing between types of most-favoured nation clauses to mandating data sharing between platforms and partner restaurants in order to reduce dependency.
Overall, the findings underscore the necessity of maintaining a careful balance between efficiency gains and market fairness. The study concludes that India’s competition laws must continue adapting, ensuring protection against exploitative practices in the platform economy while supporting innovation and consumer welfare. The discussion is especially timely as digital market power continues to concentrate and the debate over fair practices in the gig economy intensifies at home and abroad.
