The arrival of 99Food in São Paulo stirred the delivery sector with a high-impact campaign, including coupons worth R$99, free deliveries, and aggressive incentives to attract consumers, restaurants, and delivery drivers.
With a profile reminiscent of Guerrilla Marketing – which consists of a creative strategy aimed at making 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 announced benefits, questions arise about the legal limits of these practices and the possibility of holding the company accountable if the offers are not fulfilled. According to lawyer Paulo Bonilha, partner at Ambiel Bonilha Advogados and specialist in Business Consumer Law, companies must be cautious when promoting offers of this scale. ‘The Consumer Defense Code, in its Article 31, establishes the obligation for offers to be communicated correctly and clearly, so that if they lack these qualities, the provider can be held accountable, including regarding the obligation to fulfill the offer. In other words, the provider will be required to honor the offer as communicated, regardless of any contrary intention on their part. This is the principle of offer obligation,’ he explains.
In the case of free deliveries, special attention is also needed in how they are advertised. According to Bonilha, ‘the company can only restrict the offer if such conditions are clearly specified in its presentation.’ This means that hidden or unclear conditions may constitute abusive practices toward the consumer.
Responsibilities also extend to the pricing advertised on the apps. ‘In these situations, 99Food may even be required to honor the offer as advertised. Such a scenario would only not apply in cases of gross error,’ the expert states, commenting on possible discrepancies between advertised prices and those actually charged.
Regarding moral or collective damages resulting from potential consumer disappointment, the analysis is more restrictive. ‘It does not seem to me that, in the current context, the Public Prosecutor’s Office would pursue a claim of this nature. This would only happen in cases of extreme harm to the consumer, where the practice was repeated, which we cannot foresee at the moment,’ the lawyer assesses.
99Food’s entry into the São Paulo market signals fierce competition in the delivery app 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 Defense Code, which ensures transparency, clarity, and fulfillment of advertised offers.
Source:
Paulo Bonilha – partner at Ambiel Bonilha Advogados and specialist in Business Consumer Law. Postgraduate in Law from CEU Law School. Specialized expertise in Legal Metrology and procedures before CONAR.
