Swiggy has agreed to refund promotional charges that Bengaluru restaurants say were imposed without their prior consent, offering a temporary resolution to a growing dispute between the food-delivery platform and restaurant operators. The decision follows negotiations between Swiggy executives and representatives of restaurant industry bodies after eateries threatened to stop doing business with the platform from August 15.
The development comes as restaurant partners increasingly challenge the economics of online food delivery, citing commissions, promotional deductions, advertising charges and limited transparency around settlements. More than 250 Bengaluru restaurants have been threatening to delist from Swiggy and Zomato, while newer competitors such as Rapido’s Ownly are attempting to attract restaurants with a zero-commission model.
What Happened
Swiggy has reportedly agreed to refund promotional campaign charges that were allegedly collected from restaurant partners without their consent. The agreement followed discussions involving Swiggy’s senior leadership and representatives of the Bruhat Bengaluru Hoteliers Association, National Restaurant Association of India and Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India.
The restaurant groups had previously warned that participating establishments would suspend business with Swiggy from August 15 unless their concerns were addressed. Following the agreement, the deadline has reportedly been extended to September 1, giving Swiggy additional time to process refunds and work through other complaints raised by restaurant operators.
The dispute is not limited to one type of deduction. Restaurant associations have also been demanding greater transparency around promotional campaigns, payment settlements and other charges imposed through food-delivery platforms.
Key Details
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Company | Swiggy |
| Issue | Alleged unauthorised promotional charges |
| Affected market | Bengaluru |
| Refund commitment | Promotional charges reportedly collected without consent |
| Original boycott deadline | August 15, 2026 |
| Revised deadline | September 1, 2026 |
| Restaurant participation | More than 250 Bengaluru restaurants reportedly involved |
| Industry bodies involved | BBHA, NRAI and FHRAI |
| Key demand | Greater transparency and consent around deductions |
Why Restaurants Threatened a Boycott
Restaurant operators have argued that the economics of food delivery have become increasingly difficult, particularly for businesses that depend heavily on online orders.
The concerns extend beyond headline commission rates. Restaurant owners have pointed to promotional deductions, advertising expenses, payment-related charges and other adjustments that can reduce the amount ultimately received from an order.
The Bangalore Hotels Association had earlier warned that restaurants would suspend business with Swiggy if longstanding concerns over payment transparency, unauthorised deductions and advertising charges were not resolved.
Restaurant groups have also called for more control over discounts and promotions. Their position is that restaurants should not be enrolled in platform-led campaigns or incur related costs without clear consent.
Main Restaurant Demands
The issues raised by Bengaluru restaurants include:
- No promotional deductions without restaurant consent
- Clearer settlement statements showing every deduction
- Greater transparency around advertising charges
- Better mechanisms for resolving payout disputes
- An end to one-sided contractual terms
- Dedicated support for restaurant partners
- Greater control over discounts and promotional campaigns
These demands point to a broader disagreement over how costs and promotional responsibilities should be divided between restaurants and food-delivery platforms.
Swiggy’s Refund Decision
The decision to refund the disputed promotional charges is significant because it directly addresses one of the most contentious complaints from restaurant partners.
According to reports, the refund agreement followed high-level discussions between Swiggy leadership and restaurant representatives. Swiggy executives involved in the negotiations included CEO Rohit Kapoor, chief business officer Sidharth Bhakoo and Swapnil Bajpai, who leads Swiggy’s Dineout and Scenes businesses.
The company has also sought time until the end of August to address other concerns raised by restaurant bodies, which explains the extension of the potential delisting deadline to September 1.
The refund commitment therefore appears to be part of a broader attempt to prevent a disruption in Swiggy’s restaurant network.
The Economics of Food Delivery
The dispute highlights a structural challenge for food-delivery platforms.
Swiggy and Zomato provide restaurants with access to a large customer base, delivery infrastructure, payments, technology and marketing. For many restaurants, especially smaller establishments, the platforms can generate incremental orders that would otherwise be difficult to acquire.
However, these services come at a cost.
When commissions are combined with discounts, promotional spending, advertising and other deductions, restaurants may find that the amount they receive from an online order is substantially lower than the customer’s total payment.
This can create tension between the platforms’ objective of driving order frequency and restaurants’ need to maintain sustainable margins.
Discounts Become a Major Flashpoint
Promotional discounts have become particularly sensitive.
Food-delivery companies use discounts to attract customers, increase order frequency and compete for market share. Restaurants, meanwhile, may benefit from higher order volumes but can object when discounts reduce their effective realization or when participation is perceived as mandatory.
The Bengaluru restaurant groups have therefore sought greater control over platform-led promotions.
The dispute is ultimately about who should bear the cost of acquiring and retaining customers on a marketplace where restaurants and platforms have different economic incentives.
Competition Is Changing
The timing of the dispute is significant because India’s food-delivery market is beginning to see new competition.
For years, Swiggy and Zomato dominated organized online food delivery. That landscape is now becoming more competitive with the entry of Rapido’s Ownly.
Ownly has positioned itself around a zero-commission proposition for restaurants and has been expanding in Bengaluru. Inc42 reported that the platform claimed to have captured nearly 10% of Bengaluru’s online food-delivery market within five months of its launch.
Walmart-owned Flipkart is also preparing to enter food delivery in selected Bengaluru areas, adding another potential competitor to the market.
Competitive Landscape
| Platform | Positioning / Development |
|---|---|
| Swiggy | Established food-delivery marketplace facing restaurant concerns |
| Zomato | Major incumbent facing similar restaurant demands |
| Rapido Ownly | Zero-commission model for restaurant partners |
| Flipkart | Preparing a food-delivery launch in Bengaluru |
The emergence of alternative platforms gives restaurants more potential leverage when negotiating commercial terms.
Zomato Faces Similar Pressure
Swiggy is not the only company facing resistance from restaurant partners.
Zomato has also faced similar demands from Bengaluru restaurant associations concerning commissions, deductions and promotional practices. Restaurant representatives have sought more transparent arrangements from both major platforms.
Zomato has reportedly also received additional time following discussions with industry representatives.
This suggests the dispute is broader than a disagreement between Swiggy and a particular group of restaurants. Instead, it reflects tensions across India’s platform-based food-delivery business model.
What It Means for Restaurants
The refund agreement could provide immediate financial relief to affected restaurants, but the longer-term issue is whether the commercial relationship becomes more transparent.
Restaurants are likely to focus on whether future promotional charges require explicit approval and whether settlement reports provide enough detail to reconcile payments.
Greater transparency could also make it easier for restaurant owners to calculate the profitability of individual orders and decide which promotions are economically viable.
For smaller businesses with limited financial margins, predictable platform costs can be as important as the number of orders generated.
What It Means for Swiggy
For Swiggy, maintaining strong restaurant relationships is essential because the availability and quality of restaurants directly influence customer choice.
A large-scale delisting could reduce selection in important markets, potentially affecting customer engagement and order volumes.
The company therefore has an incentive to resolve the immediate dispute while preventing similar conflicts from spreading to other cities.
At the same time, Swiggy must balance restaurant demands with its own economics. Promotional campaigns, customer discounts and advertising are important parts of its marketplace strategy, meaning changes to these practices could affect revenue and demand generation.
Industry Impact
The dispute could encourage greater scrutiny of the commercial terms used by India’s food-delivery platforms.
Restaurant associations in other cities may seek similar concessions, particularly if the Bengaluru negotiations result in refunds or changes to promotional practices.
The arrival of zero-commission and new food-delivery models could further strengthen restaurants’ negotiating position by giving them alternatives to the dominant platforms.
However, alternative platforms must still demonstrate that they can deliver sufficient order volumes, logistics reliability and customer reach before restaurants can realistically reduce their dependence on established marketplaces.
Challenges Ahead
The September 1 deadline gives Swiggy time to address the broader concerns, but the refund agreement does not necessarily resolve the underlying disagreement.
Restaurant associations will likely continue seeking clearer contracts, predictable deductions and greater control over promotional activity.
Swiggy, meanwhile, will need to determine how much flexibility it can offer without undermining the economics of its marketplace.
The situation could also evolve as competition increases. If restaurants gain credible alternatives through Ownly or Flipkart, pressure on established platforms to offer more favorable commercial terms could increase.
Looking Ahead
Swiggy’s agreement to refund allegedly unauthorised promotional charges provides a temporary resolution to a dispute that threatened to disrupt its restaurant network in Bengaluru. The extension of the delisting deadline from August 15 to September 1 gives the company additional time to process refunds and negotiate solutions on other issues. The immediate outcome is important for Swiggy, but the larger issue is the sustainability of the economic relationship between food-delivery platforms and restaurant partners.
The next stage will depend on whether Swiggy can translate the refund commitment into broader changes around consent, settlements, promotions and partner support. Restaurants will be watching closely as new competitors such as Rapido’s Ownly and Flipkart enter the market, while Swiggy and Zomato will need to balance customer discounts and platform economics with restaurant profitability. If the Bengaluru dispute leads to more transparent commercial practices, it could influence how India’s food-delivery industry structures its relationships with restaurant partners across the country.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
