Court condemns 99Food for unfair competition against iFood

The 1st Business and Conflict Arbitration Court of the Central Civil Court of São Paulo issued a ruling recognizing that two advertising campaigns run by 99Food constituted illicit comparative advertising, unfair competition against iFood and go beyond the legal limits of comparative advertising. The court decision determined that 99Food is prohibited from broadcasting any advertising that attacks iFood or that uses data dishonestly to make comparisons, in addition to condemning the company to pay compensation for moral and material damages.

According to the decision, the pieces did not present objective, verifiable comparisons or based on equivalent parameters, in addition to using references and elements directly associated with the iFood brand with a derogatory nature.

The decision goes beyond the dispute between companies and recognizes that the campaigns directly harmed the consumer. Comparative advertising, to be lawful, must allow the consumer to understand the comparison criteria and verify, at a minimum, the advantage claimed by the advertiser. 99Food's campaigns, however, did not enable an effective, objective and verifiable comparison by the public and, instead of informing, the advertising pieces induced consumers to have a distorted perception of the market reality.

The decision is also anchored in the Consumer Protection Code, which determines the prevention of abuses in the consumer market, including unfair competition. Furthermore, it requires that all advertising be identifiable as such and that the advertiser maintain the factual, technical and scientific data that support their message — an obligation that, according to the ruling, was not fulfilled by 99Food.

iFood reaffirms its commitment to fair, ethical competition based on true and verifiable information. The company believes that healthy competition benefits consumers, restaurants and delivery people — and that practices that distort reality to harm competitors go against this principle. The court decision reinforces that comparative advertising, when used irresponsibly, has clear limits established by Brazilian legislation.