CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Zomato Over Pricing Disparity and Surge in Platform Fees

Regulator Rejects Allegations of Market Abuse

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued an order on July 24, 2026, closing a complaint against Eternal Ltd, the parent firm of Zomato and Blinkit. The regulator determined that no prima facie case existed to prove the food delivery giant abused its market position through its pricing structures. The ruling addresses a legal challenge regarding the platform's ability to set delivery costs and service fees independently of restaurant menu prices.

Dissecting the Consumer Grievance

The case originated from a complaint by R. Suresh, who highlighted a significant price gap between app-based orders and direct restaurant purchases. Following an order on April 13, 2026, Suresh noted that a Ghee Pongal priced at ₹105 at Sree Ariya Bhavan cost ₹198 via Zomato. This final bill included a ₹14.90 platform fee and ₹43 for delivery. The complainant raised several specific concerns regarding the company's fiscal conduct:

• Fee Escalation: The platform fee reportedly surged over 645% in less than three years, rising from approximately ₹2 in 2023 to nearly ₹15 by 2026 without a clear service upgrade.
• Commission Pressure: Allegations suggested that Zomato's 33% commission forces restaurants to inflate their base menu prices on the app.
• Drip Pricing: Suresh accused the platform of concealing mandatory costs until the final stages of the transaction, creating a misleading pricing experience.

The Commission's Analytical Framework

In dismissing the complaint under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, the CCI clarified that online delivery is a distinct product category. The Commission argued that a direct price comparison between a restaurant table and a doorstep delivery is flawed because the latter incorporates platform access, logistics, and convenience. Consequently, the regulator found the pricing disparity justified by the additional service layers provided to the consumer.

The watchdog also rejected an application for interim relief that sought to immediately halt platform fee collections. Under the 2023 amendments to the Competition Act, this closure order carries significant weight; Section 26(2A) now prevents the filing of new complaints based on the same facts. The complainant's primary legal recourse now lies with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

Procedural Implications

By opting not to refer the matter to the Director General for a full investigation, the CCI signaled that the evidence provided did not meet the threshold for a Section 26(1) inquiry. This decision reinforces the platform's right to adjust its fee structures in response to operational costs and market demand, provided these actions do not demonstrably stifle competition or exploit a dominant market standing as defined by the 2002 Act.

Source: The Hindu — News