Cost Of Convenience? Zomato–Swiggy Under Fire Over High Fees And Commissions

By Surabhi Gupta

New Delhi: Ordering food online has become second nature for urban India. A few taps promise doorstep delivery, discounts and convenience. But a fresh wave of social media outrage has reignited an old debate: Is this convenience coming at an unfair cost to consumers, restaurants and delivery workers alike?

The latest trigger was a set of viral posts comparing food bills across platforms and with direct restaurant purchases, alleging that customers are being charged significantly more on food delivery apps such as Zomato and Swiggy through inflated menu prices, platform fees and packaging charges.

“Charge For Delivery, Not Someone Else’s Food Business”

The discussion gained momentum after food blogger Nalini Unagar questioned the very foundation of food delivery pricing. In a widely shared post, she wrote, “Zomato charges delivery fee – OK. Zomato charges a platform fee – OK. Zomato charges a packaging fee – OK. If I pick up food myself from a restaurant, I pay for packaging. If Zomato delivers, I pay for packaging + delivery. That is fair. But why does Zomato also take a commission from the food price? The food is cooked by the restaurant. The business is built by the restaurant. Zomato is a delivery platform, not a restaurant, so charge for delivery and services, but taking a cut from someone else’s food business feels unfair.”

She ended her post by urging users to speak directly to restaurant owners to understand “how unhappy they are with the Zomato/Swiggy platforms”. The post crossed over 9.4 lakh views, amplifying public scrutiny of how food delivery platforms structure charges.

Soon after, another user, Ranjan, posted a side-by-side comparison of Zomato and Swiggy bills for the same restaurant, alleging unethical practices.

“Another example of dark pattern of @Swiggy… Changing the fees in the name of packaging fees and claiming they have no control, check the difference in Zomato and Swiggy for the same restaurant. This is so unethical,” he wrote.

Restaurant Owners Speak Out

Adding fuel to the debate, a restaurant owner shared one week’s income data from online platforms, breaking down how earnings are split between order value, platform commissions, taxes, advertising spend and ingredient costs. The takeaway was stark: if restaurants do not pay for in-app advertising, orders drop sharply.

“Business is yours, but these platforms are controlling it,” the owner wrote.

H.N. Verma, owner of Captain Restaurant in Ghaziabad, echoed these concerns. Speaking to ETV Bharat, he said, “The packaging is done by us. There is nothing Zomato gives us for packaging. They are only delivering the food. Even then, they are taking 30% of the food. There is no such contract done by them. We just registered online. If any order comes, they pick up the food from us and send us the money back by cutting 30% of margins, which is only for delivery.”

Legal And Consumer Protection Concerns

Legal experts, however, say the issue goes beyond pricing strategy. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court of India, has stated that the high margins charged by food delivery apps are monopolistic, anti-competitive, and clandestine. He pointed out that the end consumer ends up paying significantly more without clearly knowing who they are paying and for what exactly.

He emphasised that regulatory capping is urgently required to curb these practices because there is a serious taxation issue, as the end user is paying GST on the entire inflated amount, without transparency on how the benefits or charges are structured or justified.

Advocate Praveen Jha of the Delhi High Court told ETV Bharat that consumers may be paying charges that are legally questionable.

“According to the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the service tax levied by restaurants is completely illegal and cannot be included in online bills. Under the GST regime, platform fees and delivery services fall under specific provisions. Legally, hidden fees cannot be imposed on consumers,” he said.

Jha added that consumers can approach the National Consumer Helpline (1915) if forced to pay undisclosed or non-optional charges.

‘The App Takes The Lion’s Share’

Filmmaker Nandita Das, director of Zwigato, offered a blunt breakdown of how a typical order is split.

“On an order of ₹500, the customer pays ₹570. Out of this, the restaurant gets about ₹350 after a 30% cut, the rider gets ₹25, and the app takes nearly ₹200 through commission and delivery fees,” she told ETV Bharat.

“It’s evident that platforms are maximizing profits by squeezing restaurants and exploiting delivery partners. Convenience should not come at the cost of dignity and fairness,” Das added. “If this continues unregulated, it will hollow out local food businesses and give lesser and lesser pay to gig workers.”

Akash Bhattacharya, National Councillor, All-India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU), told ETV Bharat, “This shows why platforms need to be regulated far more, starting from their pricing models to their respect for the rights and dignity of workers. If platforms have to be part of the future of work, there is no way they can be allowed to rip off consumers and exploit workers (disguised as delivery partners) as they please.

Consumer protection laws and competition laws are all meant to maintain fair competition in the market. By ripping off consumers and workers, a few platforms are cornering a huge share of the market, which is unhealthy for the economy and unfair to consumers.”

Nirmal Gorana, National Coordinator, Gig & Platform Service Workers Union (GIPSWU) said, “Restaurant owners have been complaining about this for a long time; in fact, they organized a protest in past too. Food delivery platforms have taken everyone for granted: customers, workers, and restaurants alike. These platforms use algorithms to track search rates for specific foods and restaurants, then dynamically speculate on prices based on that data. Customers end up paying these algorithmic rates, while popular restaurants, whose identity is tied to their food, struggle to reach the right customers. This results in fewer orders and crippling commissions. This is nothing short of fraud. On behalf of gig workers at GIPSWU, we stand in solidarity with our restaurant brothers and sisters. Together, we will fight this digital monopoly.”

Delivery Workers At The Bottom

Delivery partners say they bear the brunt of this model. Sohan, a delivery worker, said, “I only get ₹25–30 for a delivery. It doesn’t increase much even for long distances.”

Another rider, Rahul, added, “Sometimes when there are 2–3 deliveries in the same area, the amount is even less than ₹30.”

What Regulators Have Said And Missed

The issue has also reached regulators. In a 2024 complaint, senior citizen Lalit Wadher accused Zomato of anti-competitive practices, including higher online prices, mandatory charges and lack of transparency. While the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed several allegations, it held that charges like tips and donations were optional.

However, critics argue the CCI failed to address the growing menace of platform fees, which rose from ₹2 per order in 2023 to ₹10 in 2024, a 400% hike. Zomato CFO Akshant Goyal said the company was “experimenting” with platform fees to test demand sensitivity, but users say there is little clarity on how these fees are calculated.

Notably, Zomato declined to comment on the controversy, telling ETV Bharat that it is currently in a “silent period.”