The arrival of 99Food in São Paulo has shaken up the delivery sector with a high-impact campaign, including R$ 99 coupons, free deliveries, and aggressive incentives to attract consumers, restaurants, and delivery drivers.
With a profile reminiscent of Guerrilla Marketing – which involves a creative strategy seeking to cause a significant impact on the public through unexpected or even provocative actions – the debut of the delivery service in São Paulo even featured an Urban Taximeter, referencing iFood, its direct competitor.
Given the volume of benefits announced, doubts arise about the legal limits of these practices and the possibility of holding the company accountable in case of non-compliance with the offers. According to lawyer Paulo Bonilha, partner at Ambiel Bonilha Advogados and specialist in Business Consumer Law, companies must be cautious when promoting such large-scale promotions. “The Consumer Defense Code, in its article 31, establishes the obligation that the offer be conveyed correctly and clearly, so that, if it does not possess such qualities, the supplier may be held responsible, including regarding the obligation to comply with it. In other words, the supplier will be obliged to fulfill the offer in the way it was conveyed, regardless of any possible contrary intention on their part. It is the principle of the mandatory offer,” he explains.
In the case of free deliveries, special attention is also required in the form of disclosure. According to Bonilha, “the company can only restrict the offer if such a situation is clearly specified in its presentation.” This means that hidden or poorly transparent conditions can constitute an abusive practice towards the consumer.
The responsibilities also extend to the pricing advertised in the applications. “In these situations, 99Food may even be obliged to fulfill the offer as advertised. Such a situation would only not be observed in the case of a gross error,” says the specialist, when commenting on possible discrepancies between the disclosed values and those actually charged.
Regarding moral or collective damages resulting from possible consumer expectations frustrations, the analysis is more restrictive. “It does not seem to me that, in the current context, the Public Prosecutor’s Office would pursue a demand of this nature. This would only happen in the case of extreme consumer harm, whose practice has been repeated, which we cannot envision at the moment,” evaluates the lawyer.
The entry of 99Food into the São Paulo market signals a fierce competition in the delivery application sector. However, experts warn that the sustainability of these campaigns will depend not only on commercial strategy, but also on strict compliance with the Consumer Protection Code, which guarantees transparency, clarity, and fulfillment of the advertised offers.
Source:
Paulo Bonilha – partner at Ambiel Bonilha Advogados and specialist in Business Consumer Law. Postgraduate in Law from CEU Law School. Specialized in Legal Metrology and procedures with CONAR.
