https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775077 CCI dismissed allegations against a food delivery platform accused of abusing dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The complainant alleged the platform operated as a duopoly, charged inflated prices, levied excessive platform fees, failed to ensure food quality, and withheld payment timing disclosure to restaurants. CCI found no prima facie case for anti-competitive practices. The Commission noted charges for food, platform fees, delivery, and tips were not unfair or discriminatory. Regarding mandatory tips, CCI observed opt-out options were clearly visible. Allegations concerning food quality and payment disclosure to restaurants raised no competition concerns. The Commission concluded insufficient evidence supported duopoly claims and directed closure of proceedings under Section 26(2) of the Act. en-us Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 08:25:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775077 CCI dismissed allegations against a food delivery platform accused of abusing dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The complainant alleged the platform operated as a duopoly, charged inflated prices, levied excessive platform fees, failed to ensure food quality, and withheld payment timing disclosure to restaurants. CCI found no prima facie case for anti-competitive practices. The Commission noted charges for food, platform fees, delivery, and tips were not unfair or discriminatory. Regarding mandatory tips, CCI observed opt-out options were clearly visible. Allegations concerning food quality and payment disclosure to restaurants raised no competition concerns. The Commission concluded insufficient evidence supported duopoly claims and directed closure of proceedings under Section 26(2) of the Act. Case-Laws Law of Competition Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775077