Brazil’s iFood Asks Regulators to Probe Its Chinese Delivery Rivals

Markets

Key Facts

—The filing. iFood, Brazil’s dominant food-delivery app, asked the antitrust regulator Cade on Monday, June 29 to investigate two Chinese-backed rivals.

—The targets. They are 99Food, owned by ride-hailing group DiDi, and Keeta, the overseas brand of China’s delivery giant Meituan.

—The charge. iFood claims the two run deep discounts and absorb losses for long stretches, propped up by cheap capital tied to Chinese state expansion policy.

—The twist. iFood is itself the firm Cade disciplined in 2023 for locking restaurants into exclusive deals, so the accuser was recently the accused.

—The stakes. iFood still handles roughly eighty percent of app delivery orders in a market valued at well over one billion dollars.

—The reply. Keeta hit back that the dominant player is trying to defend a monopoly and distract from a market closed by exclusivity clauses.

The iFood Cade complaint is a striking role reversal: the company that once stood accused of squeezing rivals is now asking the regulator to rein in the newcomers squeezing it.

On Monday, June 29, Brazil’s biggest food-delivery app made a move that would have seemed unlikely a few years ago. iFood asked the country’s competition watchdog to open an investigation into two of its fastest-growing rivals.

The watchdog is Cade, Brazil’s antitrust authority, the same body that polices mergers and abusive market behaviour. The two rivals are both Chinese-backed: 99Food, owned by the ride-hailing group DiDi, and Keeta, the international brand of the Chinese delivery giant Meituan.

What the iFood Cade complaint actually argues

iFood’s core claim is about money, not menus. It argues the two rivals can offer steep discounts and run at a loss for long stretches because they draw on cheap capital that local players cannot match.

The filing goes further and ties that cheap capital to policy. It says programmes linked to China’s drive to expand its technology firms abroad, including the initiative known as the Belt and Road, give the two companies a funding edge that distorts fair competition.

To back the point, the petition iFood filed cites a report by the Australian bank Macquarie pointing to heavy losses at the Chinese operations. iFood is asking Cade to demand cost and pricing data from the two firms to test whether the discounting is predatory.

Cade has not ruled. It said it is weighing the request internally before deciding whether to open a formal investigation, so for now this is a complaint, not a finding.

Why the iFood Cade complaint is such a reversal

The irony is hard to miss. iFood is the same company Cade disciplined in 2023, when the regulator forced it to loosen the exclusive contracts that tied restaurants to its platform and kept rivals out.

That settlement is what cracked the market open in the first place. It cleared the way for 99Food to return and for Keeta to arrive, turning a near-monopoly into a noisy three-way fight.

Keeta seized on exactly that history. It said the dominant player was trying to defend a monopoly and deflect from the real problem, a market it described as closed for years by exclusivity clauses that still hurt restaurants and couriers.

The stakes explain the sharp tone. iFood still handles roughly eighty percent of app delivery orders in Brazil, a market worth well over a billion dollars and growing, so even a few points of share are worth fighting for.

Why a foreign reader should care

For an investor or executive watching from London or Munich, this is a clean example of a pattern now playing out worldwide: deep-pocketed Chinese platforms entering a foreign market with subsidised prices, and incumbents reaching for the regulator in response.

The argument iFood makes, that state-linked financing lets rivals underprice without consequence, is the same one heard in fights over electric cars and solar panels. Here it lands in the everyday business of bringing dinner to the door.

There is a consumer angle, too. Subsidised delivery means cheaper meals today, but if the discounting drives out competitors, the prices that follow could be higher, which is precisely the question an antitrust regulator exists to weigh.

The honest caveat is that nothing has been decided. Cade may open a case or quietly shelve the request, the Chinese firms dispute the premise, and the only certainty for now is that Brazil’s delivery war has moved from the app into the regulator’s inbox.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the iFood Cade complaint about?

On June 29, 2026, iFood asked Brazil’s antitrust regulator, Cade, to investigate two Chinese-backed delivery rivals, 99Food and Keeta. iFood argues the pair use deep discounts and sustained losses, funded by cheap capital tied to Chinese state expansion policy, to win market share in a way that could distort competition.

Why is the complaint considered ironic?

iFood is the company Cade disciplined in 2023 for locking restaurants into exclusive contracts that kept rivals out. That settlement opened the market to 99Food and Keeta, so the firm now asking the regulator to act against newcomers was recently the target of regulatory action itself.

Why does it matter beyond Brazil?

It is a local version of a global fight over Chinese firms entering foreign markets with subsidised prices, the same argument seen in electric cars and solar panels. The outcome will signal how aggressively Brazil polices predatory pricing, and whether cheap delivery today risks higher prices later.

The Rio Times · Power Map

See who really holds power in Latin America

Click to open the Power Map →