A suit filed before the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s eCommerce and food delivery sectors if the reliefs sought are granted.
The action, instituted this month in Abuja by Dolapo Adedeji, alleges that Chowdeck misrepresents the true cost of meals purchased through its platform. According to the claimant, while the company presents delivery and service charges as the only additional costs borne by consumers, it allegedly inflates the base price of food items without clearly or transparently disclosing this markup.
Adedeji states that they ordered a meal through Chowdeck while already aware of the price charged at the restaurant’s physical location. Noticing that the price listed on the platform was significantly higher, the claimant says they assumed the difference reflected a larger portion size or some variation in quality that would justify the increase.
However, upon receiving the order, the claimant maintains that the meal was neither larger nor materially different in quality or packaging from what is sold at the restaurant’s outlet.
The suit further alleges that enquiries made directly with the vendor revealed that Chowdeck exercises control over pricing on its platform, contrary to representations that restaurants determine their own prices. As a result, food items listed on the platform were allegedly priced between 25% and 50% higher than in-store rates even before delivery and service fees were applied.
The claimant is accordingly asking the Tribunal to determine:
- Whether presenting menu prices that are materially higher than those charged by the vendor, without adequate disclosure, constitutes a violation of Section 115 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.
- Whether the alleged failure to disclose that listed menu prices incorporate additional platform markups amounts to a material omission and a misleading representation capable of deceiving the ordinary consumer.
- Whether Chowdeck’s pricing structure and terms of service, including the alleged policy of not refunding certain fees, amount to unfair, unreasonable, or unjust trading practices or contractual terms within the meaning of the Act.
- Whether, in light of the alleged breaches, the claimant is entitled to restitution of the excess sums paid.
In addition to these determinations, the claimant is seeking declaratory, corrective, and compliance-oriented reliefs.
Chowdeck declined to comment on this piece.
Abdulrahman Akinyemi, counsel to the claimant, said no attempt was made to pursue a private resolution with the company, noting that the objective of the suit extends beyond individual compensation.
Victoria Fakiya – Senior Writer
Techpoint Digest
Make your startup impossible to overlook
Discover the proven system to pitch your startup to the media, and finally get noticed.
“The goal here is not merely to secure compensation. It is to prompt industry-wide policy reflection, strengthen compliance practices, and foster a culture of pricing transparency that enables consumers to make informed decisions,” he said.
“Nigeria’s tech ecosystem is growing, and that’s a good thing. But innovation must grow alongside transparency and accountability,” he added.
Should the Tribunal find merit in the claimant’s case, a range of remedies has been sought. These include orders compelling Chowdeck to restructure its pricing disclosures so that any markups or embedded platform charges are clearly and immediately visible to consumers.
The claimant is also seeking restitution of alleged excess sums paid as a result of the disputed pricing structure, as well as declarations that the retention of certain non-refundable fees amounts to an unfair trade practice. Additionally, the suit asks the Tribunal to affirm that consumers should not bear the financial consequences of the company’s commission model.
The allegations, however, touch on a practice that is far from unique to one platform. Across the food delivery industry, price discrepancies between in-store menus and platform listings are common. A 2023 Credit Suisse study found that these discrepancies could be as high as 30% in certain stores.
In Nigeria, restaurants operating on third-party delivery apps typically pay commissions ranging between 15% and 30% per order. In an industry already characterised by tight margins, many vendors opt to adjust their listed prices upward to offset these commissions and preserve profitability.
Since launching in 2021, Chowdeck has grown rapidly into one of Nigeria’s leading quick commerce platforms, recently expanding into Ghana. The company has earned praise for its operational efficiency and for reportedly paying riders wages that often exceed the national minimum wage.
At the same time, pricing has periodically drawn criticism from customers. In its early stages, delivery and service fees were notably higher than those of competitors, a position the company defended as necessary to sustain service quality and rapid fulfilment. Although fees have moderated as the company scaled, pricing remains a recurring point of contention among users.
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, under which the claims are brought, was enacted before app-based food delivery became mainstream in Nigeria. As a result, it does not expressly address the complexities of platform commissions, dynamic pricing, or the allocation of cost burdens between restaurants, intermediaries, and consumers.
The Tribunal’s interpretation in this case could therefore provide important guidance for an industry whose business model depends on balancing transparency, profitability, and consumer expectations.
