A few weeks back, I ordered a plate of KK from a Delhi eatery and got it for Rs 172, well below the going rate. I downed many a KK, then took a break. I nearly ordered again, till I realised that the price was now Rs 375. Damned algorithm. It had figured out my true love and turned it into hatred — a hateful money-spinning exercise.

In my case, the platform that killed love is Swiggy. I have no such personal experiences with Zomato, though there are online complaints aplenty, of customers being over-charged by the food delivery app, allegedly being quoted prices above the original menu card.

Such instances and alleged claims of ‘misrepresentation and favouritism’ had landed the two food aggregators in a rancid broth in 2021, when the National Restaurant Association (NRAI) complained to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), claiming that the two market leaders were misusing their dominant position to stifle competition and squeeze restaurants.

Denied Once, NRAI Again Seeks Complete CCI Report

Last week, the NRAI approached the Delhi High Court, seeking the CCI’s investigation report in its entirety, insisting that it received only a ‘redacted version’ in March this year. “We petitioned the HC to protect market interests. We comply with all laws, and will not comment on the findings of the report, as it is confidential,” NRAI said in a statement.

Clearly, the knives are out, as are forks, spoons and other killer items of cutlery. Claims fly of anti-competitive practices by Swiggy and Zomato, accusing them of promoting certain outlets. The two market leaders have denied this, saying they are complying with all norms.

Before we delve further into this standoff, and its fallout on other things food, let’s visit what Anshul Gandhi wrote on Reddit: “I was about to order a cake on the Zomato app (from Little Cherry). The price quoted by Zomato for the blueberry cake was Rs 675, plus Rs 57 delivery charges. Calling the shop directly, I got the same cake for Rs 500, plus Rs 80 delivery charges, way cheaper than the price charged by Zomato.”

Are Consumers Made To Pay For Convenience?

The ongoing brouhaha began in 2021, when a few food-shoppers felt that their favourite eateries were suddenly not available on the delivery apps, or had been pushed down the page. The listing was dominated by some big-name restaurants, they shrieked on chats. Social media, which are made for such debates, raised a storm.

We have to understand that for shoppers of all kinds, including food, online platforms have revolutionised how India orders. Ordering ingredients and veggies, etc. and cooking at home suddenly became passé, even a chore. On the food front, cracks began to show in the pan and platters. That led to allegations of favouritism, nepotism and pricing irregularities.

Leading the list of complaints that reached the CCI was "missing eateries" and "over-charging". NRAI members also jumped into the steaming pot, claiming that Swiggy and Zomato were using algorithms and “unfair business strategies” to promote certain partner restaurants, possibly for higher commissions. CCI began looking into these accusations and raised red flags.

The fact that CCI shared only a redacted report with NRAI after an official ‘investigation’ fanned the cooking flames some more. Whispers turned into murmurs, questioning whether the two apps were as customer-centric as they claimed, or if they were serving their own interests at the expense of smaller businesses and users.

Algorithms, Partnerships, Hidden Bias

Those in the know say CCI’s findings hint that Swiggy and Zomato may be prioritising those restaurants with which they have exclusive partnerships or higher commission arrangements. One analyst from a market research firm said: “The algorithms aren’t neutral. They are engineered to favour those who pay more.” This alleged favouritism isn’t just a technical issue; it's a matter of survival for smaller restaurants competing in a cut-throat market.

Ravi Kumar, who runs a modest North Indian eatery in Hessargatta in Bengaluru, said: “Initially, we had good visibility. But after refusing to hike commissions, our orders dropped drastically. Now, it is almost as if we just don’t exist anymore.” Analysts argue that this practice, if true, could be creating monopolies within the app ecosystem, leaving smaller players marginalised.

Shweta Joshi, a college student in Pune, recounts her experience: “I ordered pasta and found out later that it was cheaper at the restaurant. When I confronted the restaurant manager, he said it is the app which charges more.”

The pricing disparity is not just about convenience fees; restaurants argue that the platforms mandate inflated prices to cover higher commissions. A restaurateur in Mumbai explained, “If we don’t increase menu prices, we operate at a loss. These platforms leave us with no choice.”

Double-Edged Fork For Restaurants, Diners

The ongoing row and ground-level situation drive home the double-edged nature of food delivery platforms. While they provide unmatched convenience for diners, the question mark on their business practices is troubling — are they tilting the scales too far in favour of profitability, sacrificing fairness and transparency?

Analysts say such practices could harm the long-term viability of the food delivery ecosystem itself. “When small players are pushed out, innovation suffers. The culinary diversity that makes these platforms appealing, could erode over time,” said one.

The baton has been handed right back to Swiggy, Zomato and others in the food delivery world. They have to restore trust and balance, bringing transparency to their algorithms. Regulation also needs to play a greater role. CCI has spoken of introducing measures to curb anti-competitive practices, capping commissions and/or mandating pricing transparency.

Swiggy and Zomato have transformed the way India accesses food, offering indulgence and convenience with one tap on the mobile screen. However, allegations of favouritism and nepotism point to a murkier side of their operations, with smaller players and consumers bearing the brunt. At the end of the day, any culinary ecosystem should benefit everyone — not just those at the top of the menu card or revenue leader-board.

(The writer is a veteran journalist and communications specialist. Views expressed are personal)