Foodpanda was found to hold a dominant position in the city-level online food delivery markets examined by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP), yet two regulatory enquiries into its commercial practices were closed without enforcement action after investigators concluded that the evidence did not establish violations of competition law.
The disclosure, made by the CCP in an official response to The Scoop, comes amid fresh allegations from a Lahore restaurant owner who claims that orders worth Rs6,000 generated barely Rs1,800 in receipts after deductions.
The restaurant owner has also accused Foodpanda of introducing promotional discounts without adequately consulting business owners and charging additional amounts for marketing and improved search visibility within its application.
The allegations raise questions about the cumulative cost of using Pakistan’s prominent food delivery platform, the bargaining power of independent restaurants and the extent to which the country’s competition framework addresses concerns arising from digital marketplaces.
Customers have separately complained about delivery delays, unexpected charges and subscription arrangements.
Despite being approached through WhatsApp and telephone, Foodpanda’s Head of Corporate Communications and PR, Mustafa M. Hussain, had not responded to The Scoop’s questions at the time this report was prepared.
CCP Confirms Foodpanda’s Dominance in Markets Examined
In its official response to The Scoop, the CCP confirmed that it endorsed recommendations to close two enquiries concerning Foodpanda, dated July 2, 2021, and June 7, 2024.
The enquiries examined allegations relating to commission arrangements, loyalty and exclusivity agreements, online and offline price uniformity, restrictions on restaurants using their own delivery services, reductions in delivery radius and refusal to share consumer data.
However, the regulator confirmed a significant finding.
“The enquiry reports identified Foodpanda as dominant in the city-level food aggregator markets examined,” the CCP stated.
The Commission explained that holding a dominant position does not, by itself, constitute a violation of the Competition Act, 2010.
The decisive legal question is whether a dominant undertaking engages in prohibited conduct.
According to the CCP, the evidence examined did not establish unlawful discrimination in Foodpanda’s commission arrangements.
Investigators also found insufficient evidence of significant market foreclosure or exclusion of competitors through loyalty arrangements.
Other allegations were either unsubstantiated or did not satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.
Consequently, the Commission endorsed the recommendations to close both enquiries without enforcement action.
The findings are important for two reasons.
First, they establish that Foodpanda was dominant in the particular city-level food aggregator markets examined by the regulator.
Second, they establish that the conduct investigated was not proven to violate competition law on the available evidence.
Neither conclusion should be confused with the other.
Rs6,000 in Orders, Barely Rs1,800 Received
While the CCP’s earlier enquiries ended without enforcement action, fresh concerns have emerged from restaurant operators questioning the financial viability of working with Foodpanda.
Amina Hassan, owner of Tangy & Toasted, a fast-food outlet at NASTP Delta in Lahore Cantonment, told The Scoop that she discontinued her agreement with Foodpanda because of substantial deductions and charges.
“From orders worth Rs6,000, we would hardly receive around Rs1,800,” Hassan said.
Her account indicates a difference of Rs4,200 between the stated order value and the amount received, equivalent to approximately 70 per cent.
That difference is not necessarily Foodpanda’s commission rate. Establishing the precise breakdown would require the relevant settlement statements, including any commissions, discounts, promotional contributions, taxes and other adjustments.
Nevertheless, Hassan’s testimony highlights a critical concern for smaller restaurants: the amount they ultimately receive after the platform’s charges have been applied.
For independent food businesses, sales revenue must cover ingredients, staff salaries, utilities, packaging, rent and other operating expenses.
A substantial gap between order value and settlement receipts can therefore have serious implications for profitability.
Hassan said the financial burden eventually prompted her to discontinue the arrangement.
Discounts Without Consent: Restaurant Owner Questions Promotional Practices
Hassan also alleged that Foodpanda introduced promotional discounts involving restaurant products without adequately consulting the businesses concerned.
According to her, restaurant owners were not always taken into confidence before discounts were offered.
The allegation raises questions about the approval process for promotional campaigns and whether participating restaurants understand who finances the discounts.
A discount funded entirely by a delivery platform has different financial implications from one funded by the restaurant.
For example, a 20 per cent discount on a Rs2,000 order reduces the advertised selling price by Rs400.
If the restaurant is required to absorb that reduction while also paying commissions and other charges, its earnings may fall substantially.
The actual effect depends on the contractual terms and settlement calculations.
The central concern is whether promotional arrangements are transparent, properly authorised and genuinely voluntary.
For smaller restaurants, unexpected promotional costs can complicate financial planning and reduce the commercial value of online orders.
Pay to Be Seen: The Additional Cost of Search Visibility
Another concern raised by Hassan involves advertising and search visibility.
She told The Scoop that restaurants were asked to pay additional charges if they wanted to market their products or improve their visibility within Foodpanda’s search results.
The practice introduces another financial consideration for businesses already paying commissions on completed orders.
Restaurants may incur costs to attract customers through advertising before paying additional charges when those customers place orders.
Sponsored listings and paid advertising are common features of digital marketplaces and are not inherently anti-competitive.
However, their commercial significance depends on how they operate.
For independent restaurants, questions arise about whether paid placements are clearly identified, whether advertising is genuinely optional and whether businesses can compete effectively without purchasing additional promotional services.
These questions become particularly relevant when a platform has been identified as dominant in the markets examined by the competition regulator.
Dominance does not make advertising charges unlawful. It does, however, make the competitive effects of particular commercial arrangements an important subject for evidence-based scrutiny.
Also Read: The Empire That Mian Mansha Built: Billions In Profits, Billions In Debt And A Web Of Companies
Commission Rates and the True Cost of Online Orders
Foodpanda’s commission arrangements have attracted criticism from restaurant operators for several years.
In September 2025, Dawn reported that Foodpanda charged restaurants an average commission of approximately 25 per cent, although rates varied according to commercial arrangements and order volumes.
Earlier restaurant-industry complaints referred to commission rates ranging from 25 to 35 per cent.
At a 25 per cent commission rate, a restaurant receiving a Rs2,000 order would pay Rs500 before accounting for other applicable adjustments.
The final settlement may also reflect discounts, promotional contributions and service-related charges, depending on the agreement.
Different commission rates are not inherently unlawful.
Commercial arrangements may legitimately vary according to service levels, order volumes, delivery responsibilities and other factors.
Indeed, the CCP’s official response confirms that its previous enquiries did not establish unlawful discrimination in the commission arrangements examined.
However, that finding relates to the evidence and period covered by those enquiries.
It does not independently resolve every subsequent dispute involving a restaurant’s settlement or contractual charges.
The question for current restaurant partners is whether they receive sufficiently clear information to calculate the total effective cost of each order.
Taxes on Service Fees Add Another Financial Consideration
Hassan further raised concerns about taxes charged on Foodpanda’s service fees.
Such taxes may be required under applicable legislation and should not automatically be characterised as improper deductions.
The relevant issues are whether the taxes are correctly calculated, clearly disclosed and properly itemised in restaurant settlements.
Businesses should be able to distinguish statutory taxes from commissions, service charges, advertising expenditure and promotional adjustments.
Transparent settlement records are essential for restaurants attempting to calculate profitability and identify disputed amounts.
For smaller operators without extensive accounting resources, the complexity of these deductions can itself become a commercial challenge.
Restaurant Industry Complaints Date Back to 2020
The controversy surrounding Foodpanda’s commission policies predates the latest complaints.
In September 2020, the All Pakistan Restaurant Association (APRA) protested against the platform’s commercial arrangements.
Restaurant representatives accused Foodpanda of pressuring businesses to accept higher commissions and threatening removal from the platform if they refused.
Contemporary reporting quoted APRA chairman Muhammad Naeem Siddiqui accusing the company’s management of blackmailing restaurant operators over proposed commission increases.
The association alleged that some restaurants were being asked to accept increases from approximately 18 per cent to between 25 and 35 per cent.
It also objected to alleged restrictions involving competing delivery services and restaurants’ own delivery operations.
The dispute resulted in a restaurant boycott in Karachi.
These were allegations made by restaurant-industry representatives, rather than established findings of unlawful conduct.
The CCP’s subsequent enquiries examined several related competition concerns but concluded that the available evidence did not warrant enforcement action.
Why the CCP Closed Two Foodpanda Enquiries
The CCP’s response provides important clarity about the regulatory history.
The Commission said its enquiries examined both pricing-related complaints and contractual practices that could potentially affect competition.
These included loyalty arrangements, exclusivity provisions, restrictions on self-delivery, online and offline price uniformity, reductions in delivery radius and refusal to share consumer data.
The regulator concluded that the commission arrangements examined did not establish unlawful discrimination.
It also found insufficient evidence that loyalty arrangements significantly foreclosed the market or excluded competitors.
Other allegations were not substantiated or did not meet the applicable statutory requirements.
The Commission therefore closed the enquiries without enforcement action.
Importantly, the CCP stressed that these conclusions concerned the specific conduct, periods and evidence examined.
This distinction is central to understanding the regulator’s position.
A decision not to pursue enforcement action in an earlier enquiry does not establish that every subsequent commercial practice is lawful.
Equally, fresh complaints do not establish a violation unless supported by evidence meeting the requirements of competition law.
CCP Leaves Door Open to Fresh Investigation
In response to a separate question from The Scoop, the CCP confirmed that the closure of its earlier enquiries does not prevent it from examining new allegations.
“Closure of the earlier enquiries does not prevent CCP from examining fresh allegations or subsequent conduct,” the Commission stated.
The regulator added that competition concerns or qualifying complaints must be supported by relevant facts and evidence indicating a possible violation of the Competition Act, 2010.
Such matters, it said, are assessed according to the law and on their merits.
The response is significant because it leaves open the possibility of renewed scrutiny if new evidence emerges.
Restaurant settlement statements, contractual terms, records of promotional consent and evidence concerning restrictions on competing delivery services could be relevant to determining whether particular practices warrant further examination.
However, the CCP has not announced a fresh investigation into Foodpanda.
Its response establishes the legal possibility of renewed scrutiny, not a commitment to initiate proceedings.
Customers Also Question Charges and Service Standards
Concerns surrounding Foodpanda are not limited to restaurant operators.
Umar Hayat, who works at BookMe, told The Scoop that he had concerns about delivery delays and additional charges.
Similarly, Daniya Zehra, who is associated with Orient, expressed dissatisfaction with the platform’s service standards and the additional financial burden on customers.
Their accounts echo complaints raised publicly by other Pakistani consumers.
In October 2026, journalist Omar R Quraishi publicly criticised Foodpanda after reportedly waiting approximately an hour for a grocery delivery despite the store being only a three-minute drive from his residence.
He questioned the justification for additional delivery and premium charges when the service failed to meet his expectations.
In another case, Usman Ghani alleged in a complaint published on Complaint.pk in August 2026 that an order package priced at Rs2,700 resulted in charges totalling Rs5,230.
He also claimed that a PandaPro subscription had been added without his authorisation and demanded a refund.
These complaints raise questions about pricing transparency, subscription arrangements, delivery standards and customer support.
Individual consumer disputes do not necessarily constitute competition-law violations.
Nevertheless, they illustrate why the commercial practices of online delivery platforms merit examination from both the restaurant and consumer perspectives.
Foodpanda’s Corporate Communications Head Does Not Respond
As part of its investigation, The Scoop contacted Mustafa M. Hussain, Head of Corporate Communications and PR at Foodpanda Pakistan, through WhatsApp and a telephone call.
Two questions were sent seeking the company’s official response.
The first concerned allegations that commissions, hidden charges and additional taxes on service fees substantially reduced restaurant earnings.
The question cited a Lahore restaurant owner’s account of receiving barely Rs1,800 against orders worth Rs6,000 and asked Foodpanda to explain its charging structure and provide a transparent breakdown of deductions imposed on restaurant partners.
The second addressed allegations concerning excessive commissions, discriminatory pricing, restrictive agreements and abuse of market dominance.
The Scoop asked what safeguards Foodpanda had established to ensure that smaller restaurants were not subjected to unfair commercial terms or pressured into accepting higher commissions.
Hussain had not responded to the questions at the time this report was prepared, despite being approached through WhatsApp and telephone.
The company’s response will be incorporated if received.
Dominance Without Proven Abuse: The Regulatory Challenge
The CCP’s findings reveal an important distinction at the heart of Pakistan’s competition framework.
A company can occupy a dominant market position without violating the law.
The legal concern arises when a dominant undertaking engages in prohibited conduct, such as practices that unlawfully restrict competition or abuse market power.
In Foodpanda’s case, the regulator identified dominance in the city-level food aggregator markets examined but concluded that the evidence did not establish unlawful conduct warranting enforcement action.
That conclusion must be respected.
At the same time, the CCP’s own response recognises that subsequent conduct and fresh evidence can justify further examination.
This leaves a practical question for restaurant operators who believe they are facing unfair commercial arrangements: what evidence is required to bring a new complaint before the regulator?
Detailed settlement statements, contracts, promotional records and communications concerning discounts or advertising charges could help distinguish ordinary commercial disputes from potential competition concerns.
The existence of market dominance makes that distinction particularly important, but it does not remove the need to prove prohibited conduct.
The Price of Digital Dependence
Food delivery platforms have transformed Pakistan’s restaurant industry.
They provide access to customers, digital ordering systems, payment processing, marketing opportunities and delivery infrastructure.
These services create genuine commercial value and involve legitimate operating costs.
However, the financial relationship between platforms and restaurants deserves scrutiny, particularly when smaller businesses question the total deductions from their earnings.
Amina Hassan’s account illustrates the concerns that can arise when commissions, discounts, taxes and advertising costs accumulate.
Customer complaints add another dimension involving service quality and the transparency of charges.
The CCP’s official response now establishes two important facts: Foodpanda was dominant in the city-level markets examined, and the regulator did not find sufficient evidence to pursue enforcement action in either of its two enquiries.
It also establishes that the company’s subsequent conduct is not beyond future examination.
The outstanding issue is whether fresh, documented complaints reveal problems that were not established in the earlier investigations.
For restaurants, the question is how much of each order they can afford to surrender to the platform. For the regulator, the question is whether any current commercial practices cross the line from legitimate business arrangements into prohibited conduct.
The answer will depend not on allegations alone, but on the contracts, settlement records and evidence behind them.