Brazil's CADE reopens 99Food restaurant-clause inquiry but denies Keeta interim relief

Brazil's competition authority has reopened its inquiry into exclusivity-type clauses in 99Food's contracts with restaurants, overturning a decision to close the case, while refusing rival Keeta's request for interim measures to suspend the clauses. The Tribunal of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) decided on 2 September to send the case back to the Office of the Superintendent General for further investigation, according to a CADE statement published on 30 September.

The case began in March 2026 on a complaint from Keeta Delivery Brazil Ltda, which alleged that 99Food imposed restrictions on restaurants, such as limits on contracting with rival platforms, in some cases tied to financial incentives. Keeta argued that the clauses could hinder the entry and expansion of new competitors in online food delivery, the statement says. The Superintendent General dismissed the case in June, and the Tribunal then called it up to examine whether the findings were enough to address the competition concerns identified.

What the investigators must now examine

The rapporteur, Interim President Diogo Thomson, concluded that matters remained to be discussed before a final decision. The further investigation is to cover the actual effects of the clauses on restaurants and on their ability to operate on several platforms at once, a practice known as multi-homing, according to CADE. The Superintendent General is to obtain information directly from restaurants and chains potentially subject to the restrictions and to look more closely at the contractual arrangements, including their term and scope, the incentives offered and the penalties provided.

The evidentiary stage will also examine how significant the restaurants bound by the clauses are for competition, and update the analysis of the market's structure and dynamics, taking into account Keeta's entry, 99Food's re-entry and expansion, and the practices of iFood and Rappi. Where applicable, CADE will consider the parameters of its cease and desist agreement with iFood and evidence from other investigations and sector monitoring, the statement says.

The Tribunal also ordered the analysis of documents 99Food submitted on clauses allegedly used by Keeta itself. If the fact-finding identifies practices that raise similar concerns, the Superintendent General can take the applicable legal measures, according to CADE.

No interim relief

Keeta had appealed over its request for a preventive measure, seeking among other things the suspension of clauses it called "banning" clauses and an order preventing similar contracts. The Superintendent General had stayed that request pending a related lawsuit, but the rapporteur found that the stay had the practical effect of a denial, so the Tribunal heard the appeal, the statement says.

Thomson concluded that there were insufficient grounds to grant the measure on the merits, given the uncertainties about the clauses, the market structure and dynamics, and the contractual practices of the participants. The Tribunal denied the appeal. CADE stresses that the decision is not a final conclusion on whether the conduct is lawful, that new evidence could justify revisiting interim measures, and that the ongoing administrative inquiry does not imply an infringement. For 99Food, the practical effect is that its contracts stay in force while the Superintendent General gathers evidence. For Keeta, interim measures remain possible if that evidence changes the picture.

Why it matters

Keeta's complaint rests on a simple mechanism: restaurants bound by clauses limiting their dealings with rival platforms are harder for a new entrant to recruit. CADE's approach in this case is to test the clauses against evidence from the restaurants themselves before acting, and to look at both sides' contracts. The case is one of several platform and digital matters on CADE's news page since September, at a time when the authority is also consulting on changes to its merger notification rules and statutes.