São Paulo court rejects bid to block Keeta's intermediary buying

By Priya Raman

The São Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP) has denied a preliminary injunction sought by the National Restaurant Association (ANR) that aimed to suspend Keeta's "intermediary purchase" feature on the spot. Judge Caio Hunnicutt Fleury Moraes of the 2nd Business Court and Arbitration Conflicts Chamber ruled on Tuesday in favor of the Chinese delivery giant, keeping the contested service in operation.

The feature lets Keeta list restaurant menus without a formal partnership contract. In practice, the app sends a courier to the restaurant's counter, buys the meal as an ordinary customer, and delivers it to the end consumer.

The ANR had asked for daily fines of R$ 10,000 for each restaurant kept on the platform without consent. Its arguments rested on commercial autonomy, sanitary risks in transport, and infringement of brand image rights.

What does the ruling change?

Judge Moraes accepted Keeta's defense based on the legal principle of "trademark exhaustion." Under Brazilian law, a business owner cannot prevent the free circulation of a product that the owner itself lawfully placed on the market.

The ruling also noted that abruptly shutting down a service line already in operation would be a measure "temerária e de difícil reversão" — reckless and hard to reverse — because it would compulsorily affect entrepreneurs who do not oppose the format and benefit from the additional sales flow.

A sector split in two

The case exposed a rift in food-sector representation. The ANR led the judicial offensive, citing lack of operational control over the product delivered to customers. The Brazilian Bar and Restaurant Association (Abrasel) moved in the opposite direction and publicly backed the feature.

In a statement, Abrasel said banning the tool would mean closing "uma das poucas saídas disponíveis ao setor, preservando a concentração que encarece a operação dos estabelecimentos" — one of the few exits available to the sector, preserving the concentration that makes operations more expensive.

"A compra intermediada é uma alternativa lícita, inovadora e pró-competitiva, que amplia a demanda dos bares e restaurantes, as opções do consumidor e as oportunidades de renda dos entregadores, em um mercado ainda marcado por alta concentração," Abrasel said.

Keeta's safeguards

The argument echoes Keeta's own justification for its Brazil pilot, launched exactly one year ago. The Meituan subsidiary says the feature responds to exclusivity and banishment clauses that, in its view, keep the market locked.

With the format cleared for now, Keeta reiterates that it covers all costs and the refund policy in cases of loss or order problems, shielding restaurants from financial losses. The platform also says it does not use official restaurant logos and places an "Intermediada" notice at the top of storefronts to inform users there is no direct partnership.

A litigious escalation

The decision arrives amid a broader legal escalation. Chains including Boali, Greenjoy, Pizza Cesar and Bom Beef Burgers have complained in recent months about outdated menus, exposure to negative reviews caused by transport problems, and involuntary interference with their pricing strategies due to the platform's aggressive coupon campaigns.

Many of these businesses sent extrajudicial notices based on the Industrial Property Law, demanding removal within 48 hours. Keeta's refusal forced the dispute up to the Court.

The exclusivity machinery that, in theory, motivated the feature is also under scrutiny. In September, the TJSP's 2nd Reserved Business Law Chamber annulled contractual banishment requirements applied by 99Food against Keeta. In parallel cases, iFood has gone to São Paulo courts and antitrust regulator Cade, accusing Keeta of unfair competition tactics, partner poaching and inflated subsidies.

The ANR did not send a position to O Globo by the time of publication. For marketers and restaurant operators, the ruling keeps a contested distribution channel open while the structural war over Brazil's delivery rules moves to higher courts and regulators.