Keeta’s ‘intermediary purchase’ generates complaints about restaurants appearing on the app without permission

In this format, consumers can place orders at restaurants that do not have a contract with Keeta. Then a delivery person or company assistant receives the request, goes to the restaurant, places the order directly at the cash register and brings the product to the customer.

At least four restaurant chains have contacted the National Association of Restaurants (ANR) due to problems with the model in cities like Santos and São Vicente, where Keeta began operating in August, through a pilot project. On December 1, the brand began operations in São Paulo and other cities in the metropolitan region.

At the time of the application’s launch, the platform already had 27,000 registered restaurants in the capital alone – from large chains to small and medium-sized establishments – and 98,200 delivery drivers, registered with the system even before its launch in the city.

For comparison, iFood has 450,000 registered delivery workers in the country. During Keeta’s pilot project in Santos and São Vicente, more than a thousand restaurants and 4,700 delivery drivers signed up by November 30. In the first 20 days of operation, the base grew 60% among restaurants and 135% among delivery drivers.

According to the ANR, the problems range from unauthorized use of the brand (since the dishes are presented in photos in the application) to prices that do not correspond to the restaurants’ strategy. If there are promotional values ​​on the platform for example, this can create unexpected demand, without restaurants being able to adapt to meet it.

• Spying, suspicious advice and laptop theft: investigations reveal behind the scenes of Brazil’s delivery “war”
• Bag war: the fight between iFood, 99Food, Rappi and Keeta reaches the delivery drivers

In the Keeta application, by clicking on the “intermediary purchase” tag, the consumer is informed that prices may be different from those charged in the restaurant, as they include purchase and delivery costs related to the service. The company says the model “ensures customers enjoy greater choice and a great delivery experience, even at restaurants that do not yet have a direct partnership with Keeta.”

Over the weekend, Outback Brasil, one of the chains that appears in Keeta’s “middle purchase” option, posted in Instagram Stories that the chain had partnerships “only with iFood and 99Food.” “To receive your order with quality and security, and enjoy the Outback experience you already know, we recommend placing your orders exclusively through these channels,” the message reads.

When asked for the report, the company said that the positioning occurred due to the emergence of this new modality, with the aim of strengthening the brand’s official partner channels, through which Outback claims to guarantee experience, food safety and order tracking. The company emphasized that its official sales channels are only iFood, 99Food and its own app.

According to an industry source informed by GLOBO, another restaurant chain supposedly uncomfortable with the intermediated purchasing format in Santos is Pizza Hut. When contacted, the company neither denied nor confirmed the information; he only said that he did not have a partnership with Keeta at the moment and that future opportunities could be evaluated.

Fernando de Paula, vice president of the ANR board of directors, said that the entity was not considering taking legal action against Keeta, but hoped that the company would abandon this modality.

— We are following it with concern because this practice has already occurred in the past. We condemn. We hope that the company will abandon this practice and that it will not continue.

According to him, between four and five restaurant chains have already contacted the ANR. The complaints relate exclusively to the intermediated purchasing model. According to De Paula, the problems range from selling the brand without authorization to prices that might not be consistent with the business operation at the time.

Contacted, Keeta said that “intermediated purchasing” is a new tool that “is being tested” to accelerate the supply of restaurants not yet integrated into the platform. “The solution is open to all types of restaurants, including small businesses that may have difficulty integrating via API. In the event of a problem, Keeta analyzes the complaint and applies the refund policy accordingly,” the company specifies.

The company also reminded that these options can be found in the application through the “Intermediate” tag and the images of the dishes. Restaurant logos are not displayed. “Keeta operates in compliance with all local laws and requirements, providing more opportunities for consumers, delivery partners and retailers,” the company said in a statement.

From the customer’s perspective, there’s no problem, experts say, as long as it’s clear the restaurant isn’t in a partnership with Keeta. For Gabriel de Britto Silva, lawyer specializing in consumer law, intermediated purchasing is like a “favor” that the company grants to those who do not wish to buy a product or service in person in a restaurant.

— The existing relationship is between the interested party and the “attorney”, a relationship mediated by Keeta. The commercial establishment does not appear in this list. This is a business model that does not take away the profit margin of the commercial establishment. Firstly, there is no violation of the principles of free competition, as well as the foundations of the right to use the brand.

Luiza Tângari Coelho, partner in the field of Intellectual Property at Madrona Advogados, explains that copyright protects the use of images and requires prior authorization for their reproduction, even when the photo used by the application, for example, was taken on the social networks of a restaurant or store.

In case of use of trademarks, it specifies that as a general rule, it is also necessary to obtain authorization. There is, however, an exception provided for by law which prevents the holder from prohibiting a “merchant” from using the mark to publicize and sell the products that it actually offers.

Luiza points out, however, that this law is old, created before the emergence of e-commerce and delivery services via applications.