the story So Far: Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Thursday (July 24, 2026) Complaint against Eternal Limited closedHolding that no prima facie case of abuse of dominance is made out with respect to platform fees and pricing practices on its food delivery platform, Zomato. In its preliminary assessment, the Commission found no violations of the Competition Act, 2002 (2002 Act) in the company’s pricing practices, including platform fees, delivery fees and differences between menu prices charged by restaurants and the prices displayed on the app. Eternal Limited is the parent company of food delivery platform Zomato and quick commerce platform Blinkit.
What was alleged in the complaint?
The complaint was filed by an individual consumer, R. Suresh, who alleged that Zomato was abusing its dominant market position for online food delivery platform services in India. Under the Competition Act, 2002 (2002 Act), a dominant position refers to a position of economic strength that enables an enterprise to act independently of competitive forces or influence the market in its favour.
The complaint arose from an order placed by Mr. Suresh through Zomato on April 13, 2026. He ordered Ghee Pongal serving from Sri Ariya Bhavan, which was listed at ₹123.50 on the app. According to the complaint, after adding ₹43 delivery charge, ₹14.90 platform fee and applicable GST, the final bill increased to ₹198. Mr. Suresh later purchased the same item directly from the restaurant for ₹105 including GST.
Relying on this price differential, Mr Suresh alleged that Zomato was taking advantage of its dominant position to impose unfair charges on consumers, while forcing restaurants to increase menu prices. He claimed that restaurants increase prices on the platform because Zomato deducts around 33% commission on orders.
The market regulator was also told that delivery apps have increased their platform fees drastically over the last few years. Mr Suresh alleged that the company had introduced charges of around ₹2 per order in 2023, but increased it to ₹14.90 per order in less than three years, a jump of more than 645%, without any “transparent rationale” or corresponding improvement in services. According to the complaint, these practices are an abuse of Zomato’s dominant position, which is prohibited under Section 4 of the 2002 Act.
What relief was sought?
The complaint alleged that Zomato violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (2002 Act), which prohibit anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position, respectively. According to the complainant, the platform had charged excessive commissions, imposed arbitrary platform fees, adopted “drip pricing” practices (where additional mandatory charges are disclosed only in the later stages of the transaction), and imposed unfair and discriminatory pricing terms.
Accordingly, Mr Suresh urged the regulator to order a probe into Zomato’s conduct. They also sought disclosure of the company’s pricing methodology and commission structure, cessation of charging platform fees, corrective measures to address the alleged anti-competitive practices, imposition of a fine and a cease-and-desist order directing the company to cease such practices.
Apart from the complaint, Mr Suresh also filed an interim application seeking interim relief pending the decision of the CCI. He asked the Commission to stop Zomato from charging platform fees and direct it to disclose all charges in a transparent manner. He argued that continued levy of platform fees has caused irreparable harm to consumers and the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting interim relief.
What happens after CCI finds no prima facie case?
CCI closed the complaint under Section 26(2) of the 2002 Act. Under the Act, every complaint must first undergo preliminary investigation to determine whether it discloses Prima facie Violation case. At this stage, the Commission does not examine the evidence in detail or determine whether the allegations have been ultimately proven.
Instead, it considers whether the material before it is sufficient to warrant a formal investigation. if it gets one Prima facie In the case, it passes an order under Section 26(1) and directs its investigation arm, the Director General (DG), to conduct a detailed investigation and submit a report. However, the DG’s report is not binding on the Commission, which after considering the report and hearing the parties, takes a final decision on whether there has been a violation of the Act.
However, in the present case, the Commission concluded that no Prima facie Made out the case, and also dismissed the complainant’s plea for interim relief seeking an immediate stay on the collection of platform fees.
A winding up order under Section 26(2) is appealable before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 53A of the 2002 Act. The consequences of such termination have also acquired greater significance after the insertion of Section 26(2A) by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023. This provision empowers the Commission not to consider new information based on the same or substantially the same facts and issues as have already been decided. With the intention of discouraging repeated complaints, it gives greater finality to the section 26(2) order, making an appeal before the NCLAT the main avenue to challenge such an order.
What were the monitor’s findings?
The Commission rejected the complainant’s allegation that the price of Ghee Pongal on Zomato was unreasonable given that food sold through online delivery platforms cannot be compared with food purchased directly at restaurants. It argued that online food delivery includes additional services beyond food, including online ordering, platform access and doorstep delivery. Consumers who choose to avail these services have to pay additional charges such as delivery charges and platform fees. Since the business models of restaurants and online food delivery platforms are fundamentally different, the Commission considered that the difference in the final price of a food item does not, in itself, indicate anti-competitive conduct.
CCI also rejected the allegation of “drip pricing”. It was observed that drip pricing is a recognized sales practice in which a business initially displays only a portion of a product’s price before disclosing additional mandatory charges such as platform fees, delivery charges, taxes or surcharges during the checkout process. In the present case, the Commission said that these charges were levied for individual services provided by the platform and consumers were free to accept or reject the order till the final stage of checkout. It was therefore held that this practice, in itself, does not give rise to any competition law concerns.
Addressing allegations that restaurants raise menu prices to compensate for Zomato’s commission, the Commission found that online food delivery platforms operate as multi-party businesses. They charge consumers platform and delivery fees for facilitating online ordering and delivery, while restaurants also take commission for listing and selling food through the platform. Restaurants may choose to recoup those commissions by raising menu prices on the app, but the Commission held that this, in itself, does not establish a violation of the 2002 Act.
The Commission also found that the complainant’s comparison was based on a single, lower priced food item which showed an 88% price difference. It added that since delivery charges are largely fixed, the percentage difference will be quite small for higher value orders. Accordingly, the regulator held that no allegations were disclosed Prima facie Any case of anti-competitive conduct or abuse of dominance requires a formal investigation under the 2002 Act.
What are the implications?
According to Toshit Shandilya, partner in the competition law practice at AZB & Partners, while consumers may feel aggrieved by Zomato’s pricing, the CCI does not deal with individual consumer complaints.
“The CCI examined the business model and found that each fee, whether platform fee, delivery fee or restaurant commission, was linked to a specific service being provided. That is why it found no grounds to order a formal investigation. To secure a favorable order under the Competition Act, a complainant must show a specific anti-competitive design, which generally requires market-wide evidence rather than evidence taken from a single transaction,” he explained. The Hindu.
However, Mr Shandilya said the order did not relate to consumer law. “The CCI’s finding under competition law does not determine the outcome under consumer law. This order is limited to the Competition Act. It has no bearing on how a claim on drip pricing under consumer law will be evaluated,” he said.
