✓ verbatim from the press
The National Consumer Secretariat (Senacon) has initiated administrative sanctioning proceedings against 99 Food for non-compliance with Ordinance No. 61/2026, which requires delivery platforms to disclose in detail how the price paid by consumers is divided among the app, delivery worker, and restaurant. The fine could reach R$ 14 million. The order opening the proceedings was signed by Daniel Amaral Nunes Carnaúba, General Coordinator of Market Studies and Monitoring at Senacon, on June 23, 2026. ✓
Press quotes (3)
"A Secretaria Nacional do Consumidor (Senacon) do Ministério da Justiça instaurou, nesta terça-feira, 23, um processo administrativo sancionador em face da 99 Food por descumprir uma portaria que exige das plataformas a divulgação ao consumidor do valor pago a restaurantes e entregadores a cada serviço."
"O processo pode resultar na aplicação de multa de até R$ 14 milhões."
"NOME DA AUTORIDADE Daniel Amaral Nunes Carnaúba CARGO Coordenador-Geral de Estudos e Monitoramento de Mercado (CGEMM)"
According to Senacon Ordinance No. 61, dated March 24, 2026, signed by National Consumer Secretary Ricardo Morishita Wada, digital intermediation platforms for transportation and delivery must provide a summary table of price composition containing "the total price paid by the Recipient," "the portion of the price destined for the Provider," "the portion of the price destined for the Service Provider, including tips," and "the portion of the price destined for the Sender, when applicable." The regulation took effect in April 2026, with a 30-day compliance period. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"Art. 3º A Plataforma deverá disponibilizar um quadro-resumo da composição e da destinação do preço pago pelo Destinatário, contendo, no mínimo: I. O preço total pago pelo Destinatário; II. A parcela do preço destinada ao Provedor; III. A parcela do preço destinada ao Prestador, incluindo gorjetas; IV. A parcela do preço destinada ao Remetente, quando houver Remetente."
"A portaria em questão foi instituída em março deste ano e entrou em vigor em abril."
In the order, Carnaúba states that 99 Food argued it complies with the ordinance, but that it was found that consumers had "only generic information" when placing orders through the platform. "The elements presented by the company (99 Food) show the absence of clear and individualized identification of the portion destined for each economic agent involved in the transaction, in non-compliance with the Transparency Ordinance," the document states, according to Exame. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"No despacho que abre o processo, o diretor do departamento de Proteção e Defesa do Consumidor da Senacon, Daniel Carnaúba, afirma que a 99 Food argumentou que cumpre a portaria, mas que foi constatado que o consumidor tinha apenas informações genéricas ao realizar um pedido pela plataforma."
"Os elementos apresentados pela empresa (99 Food) evidenciam a ausência de identificação clara e individualizada da parcela destinada a cada agente econômico envolvido na transação, em desconformidade com a Portaria da Transparência"
The order also points to "evidence of additional violations, consisting of misleading the consumer regarding the destination of charged amounts," since "the company does not demonstrate that the items 'delivery fee' and 'service fee' correspond, respectively, to the amount actually destined for the delivery worker and the amount retained by the platform as intermediation," as published by Veja. Senacon wants to know whether the names of the charges reflect their actual economic destination. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"a empresa não demonstra que as rubricas 'taxa de entrega' e 'taxa de serviço' correspondem, respectivamente, ao montante efetivamente repassado ao entregador e ao valor retido pela plataforma pela intermediação"
"Os quadros de preços apresentados pela 99 Food evidenciam indícios de ilícito adicional, consistente em indução do consumidor a erro quanto à destinação dos valores cobrados na operação"
99 Food will have 20 days from notification to present its defense and demonstrate compliance with the regulation. The company stated, in a note, that it "receives the opening of the proceedings naturally" and affirms it complies with "the practices, policies and rules of the Consumer Defense Code." Senacon had already opened similar proceedings against iFood and Keeta at the end of May 2026. ✓
Press quotes (3)
"A 99 Food terá 20 dias, contados a partir da notificação, para responder à Senacon e demonstrar cumprimento da norma."
"A 99 Food diz que "recebe com naturalidade a abertura do processo" e afirma cumprir "as práticas, políticas e regras do Código de Defesa do Consumidor"."
"A Senacon já abriu processos semelhantes contra iFood e Keeta no fim de maio."
Senacon initiated administrative sanctioning proceedings against 99 Food on June 23, 2026, for non-compliance with Ordinance No. 61/2026, which requires transparency in price composition for delivery platforms.
Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.
Covered by only some sources (2)
Conflicting versions (1)
Official title of Daniel Amaral Nunes Carnaúba at Senacon
-
What is 99 Food's fee structure relative to competitors (iFood, Rappi, Uber Eats)?
Why it's still unknown: None of the consulted outlets detailed the fees charged by 99 Food to restaurants or consumers, nor presented a comparison with market rates — information necessary to assess whether the charges are disproportionate or competitively normal.
-
What concrete evidence did Senacon present that consumers were actually misled by 99 Food's fee labels?
Why it's still unknown: The order mentions 'evidence of violations' and states the company did not demonstrate correspondence between the name and destination of charges, but outlets did not report documentary evidence — complaints, consumer surveys, or verification tests — proving that actual consumers misinterpreted the labels.
-
Why did Senacon open proceedings against 99 Food only in June, two months after the end of the 30-day compliance period (which expired in May)?
Why it's still unknown: Ordinance 61/2026 took effect in April with a 30-day compliance period; proceedings against iFood and Keeta were opened in late May; but proceedings against 99 Food were initiated on June 23 — no outlet explained the gap.
-
What is the strongest doctrinal argument that Ordinance 61/2026 exceeds Senacon's regulatory power?
Why it's still unknown: None of the consulted outlets presented legal opinions, legislative consultancy analyses, or academic statements on the constitutionality and legality of the ordinance — whether it introduces legal innovations beyond the secretariat's regulatory competence or constitutes valid regulation of the Consumer Defense Code.