Exclusivity Ban Harms Rappi Supply

A blanket ban on exclusivity would remove one of the few tools smaller delivery apps can use to lock in scarce supply. In food delivery, the highest volume restaurant chains pull a disproportionate share of orders, so owning those accounts can shape rider density, customer choice, and merchant economics in a city. That is why a rule first aimed at iFood can also reduce Rappi's ability to defend its own restaurant base when competition intensifies.

• Brazilian regulators focused on exclusivity because large restaurant chains act like anchors for local demand. CADE first barred iFood from signing new exclusive deals in 2021, then later concluded those deals were raising entry barriers for rivals. That logic helps challengers against the leader, but it also limits every platform's ability to secure guaranteed supply.
  2 gov 3 oecd
• Rappi's business depends on being a top two player in each market, because order density lowers delivery times and spreads courier costs across more trips. If exclusive supply is unavailable to everyone, differentiation shifts toward subsidies, lower commissions, and heavier marketing spend, which pressures take rates and raises CAC.
  1 sacra 4 sacra
• The practical issue is not every restaurant, it is the handful that generate the most orders. Prior research on Rappi notes that key accounts drive a majority of GMV and attract riders to cluster nearby. If those accounts can list everywhere, customers can multi home and platforms lose leverage over both merchants and courier supply.
  1 sacra 4 sacra

The market is heading toward competition based less on contractual lock in and more on execution. For Rappi, that means faster delivery, stronger cross sell into grocery, fintech, and travel, and better retention economics will matter more than winning exclusive restaurant logos. As regulators narrow exclusivity, durable advantage shifts from contract structure to density and product breadth.