Prachi Agarwal & Anr. v. Swiggy Bundl Technologies Private Limited
In the Competition Commission of India
Case Number 39/2019
Before Chairperson Ashok Kumar Gupta, Member Sangeeta Verma, and Member Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi
Decided on June 19, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Swiggy’s role as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 79)
• The Competition Act, 2002 (Section 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 4(2)(a), 19(1)(a), 26(2))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The informants have alleged that Swiggy is misusing its dominant position in the app-based food ordering and delivery market by hiking the prices of food items on its platform.
• The prices charged are allegedly more than the prices charged by restaurants and the delivery charges.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted bills of restaurants and screenshots of the Swiggy website to show the difference between the prices of which the public is unaware.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that it is only acting as an intermediary and has no role in fixing the prices. The partners (restaurants) directly uploaded the prices as the pricing decision solely rests with them. Swiggy cannot influence the prices on its platform directly or indirectly. They also argued that they are not in the dominant position in that relevant market.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench observed that Swiggy and its partner restaurants have a contract named Swiggy Merchant ‘Terms of Use’ to set a uniform price and it addresses all the issues related to price with its partners.
• The Commission also stated that Swiggy is an ‘intermediary’ as per Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its role is restricted to providing access to a communication system.  Third parties make the information available, which is transmitted or temporarily hosted/stored over the said communication system. Moreover, it does not modify any information during the transmission made on its platform. Hence, the difference in the rates is solely attributable to the Partners (restaurants).

Final Decision

• Matter closed.