CADE is investigating 99Food, but it is the iFood precedent that is shaping the landscape for Prosus.

The essentials

The CADE Tribunal, Brazil's competition authority, decided on September 2nd to continue its review of clauses used by 99Food in its contracts with restaurants. It rejected, due to insufficient evidence at this stage, the interim measure requested by Keeta. iFood is not the company targeted by this new investigation. It is nevertheless essential to its reading: the CADE will analyze the practices of 99Food in light, in particular, of the limits imposed on iFood by an agreement concluded in 2023. For Prosus, the episode shows that the rules applied to its most profitable asset in delivery are becoming a market framework, but also that the competitive battle will be regulated in real time.

Why this is material for Prosus

iFood generated $1.87 billion in revenue and $400 million in adjusted EBITDA for the fiscal year ending March 2026. It alone accounted for approximately 32% of the positive adjusted EBITDA reported for the Prosus ecosystem. This weight gives any change in the Brazilian competitive landscape a significance that extends far beyond a dispute between apps.

Prosus announced that iFood's adjusted EBITDA could fall to between $100 million and $150 million in fiscal year 2027 due to aggressive competitive investments. The holding company is therefore accepting a voluntary decrease in earnings to defend and expand its ecosystem. The CADE's decision is important because it determines the commercial tools available to everyone during this reinvestment phase. Competition subject to comparable limits makes Prosus's effort more transparent. A persistent asymmetry could increase its cost.

What CADE actually decided

The case stems from a complaint filed by Keeta, the delivery app owned by the Chinese group Meituan. Keeta is challenging contractual clauses in 99Food, the platform relaunched by the DiDi group, which could limit restaurants' ability to work simultaneously with multiple intermediaries. The technical term is "multi-homing": a single restaurant chooses to be present on iFood, 99Food, Keeta, Rappi, or several at the same time.

The CADE did not conclude that 99Food had broken the law. It requested further investigation into the duration and scope of the clauses, the financial incentives, the penalties, their effects on restaurants, and the market structure. It also wants to examine documents produced by 99Food that accuse Keeta of similar practices. In other words, the regulator is monitoring both new plaintiffs.

Meanwhile, the Tribunal refused to immediately impose the interim measure sought by Keeta. It considered that the available evidence was insufficient, at this stage, to establish the necessary urgency or harm. This refusal does not validate 99Food's contracts. It allows the investigation to continue without immediately changing the trading rules.

Important clarification: iFood is not the target.

How iFood Became the Regulator's Benchmark

In 2023, iFood reached an agreement with CADE that ended an investigation into its exclusivity practices. This agreement notably prohibits exclusivity agreements with chains of at least 30 restaurants. For smaller players, it limits the impact of exclusive contracts at the national level and in major cities. It also regulates their duration, imposes a renewal period, and prohibits certain parity clauses that would have prevented a restaurant from offering better terms elsewhere.

At the time, CADE sought a balance: preventing a very powerful player from blocking access to restaurants, while allowing certain limited-scope exclusivity agreements when they compensate for a commercial investment. Three years later, this compromise serves as the standard for examining rivals. The regulator is not saying that every company must automatically copy iFood's thresholds; It notes that comparable obligations are part of the analysis.

For Prosus, this represents a potentially advantageous form of symmetry. iFood has already adapted its contracts, sales teams, and tracking systems to a restrictive framework. While 99Food and Keeta must adhere to similar principles, their market entry cannot rely solely on exclusive restaurant reservations. The advantage doesn't disappear: capitalized competitors can subsidize deliveries, users, and partners. But the battle shifts to service quality, logistics, the financial product, and the depth of the ecosystem.

The benefit of regulatory fairness should not be overestimated.

The same rule does not have the same effect on an established platform and a new entrant. iFood already has a mutually reinforcing user base, couriers, restaurants, and transaction data. A new player needs density to shorten delivery times and offset the impact of its promotions. Limiting its exclusive offerings can make this process more difficult. Conversely, iFood's brand recognition and size attract greater regulatory attention to every change in its offering.

The 2023 framework also does not cover all dimensions of competition. Delivery is becoming a gateway to payments, restaurant credit, consumer benefits, and advertising. Prosus reports that iFood Pago generated $463 million in revenue and $38 million in adjusted EBITDA during fiscal year 2026, with 1.8 billion reais in credit assets. Exclusivity agreements with restaurants alone do not address the issues of financing, data, or service integration.

This is where the issue becomes fundamentally "holding-first." Prosus no longer values ​​iFood simply as an app that takes a commission on a meal. It views it as a transactional ecosystem capable of monetizing payment and credit while simultaneously fueling its AI-assisted services strategy. The CADE (Customer Access and Development Environment) can therefore shape the value of multiple economic loops from a single entry point: the relationship with the restaurant.

From Restaurant Contracts to Prosus's Earnings

Why Prosus Accepts a Temporary Profit Drop

iFood's reported growth was powerful: revenue up 40%, adjusted EBITDA up 56%. Yet, Prosus is preparing the market for a sharp contraction in earnings in 2027. The message is that the next phase will require more spending to defend the core business, accelerate new services, and respond to 99Food, Keeta, and Rappi.

This decision can create value if every dollar sacrificed today protects a profitable base, recruits repeat users, or opens up an additional source of profit. It can destroy value if the promotions only shift opportunistic orders between platforms. The CADE survey doesn't answer this question. She adds a variable: competitive discipline will not only be decided by marketing budgets, but also by the limits imposed on contracts.

The most interesting signal is therefore twofold. On the one hand, the previous iFood case is significant enough to serve as a model when regulators analyze new entrants. This can reduce regulatory asymmetry. On the other hand, the market remains competitive enough that the CADE (French Regulatory Authority for Electronic Communications and Posts) is opening new cases and that Prosus is voluntarily reducing iFood's profit. A comfortable, uninterrupted market is not the central scenario described by the facts.

What to Watch

The useful question for the Prosus investor