The declared war between delivery companies in Brazil , which involves cases of corporate espionage, has a new chapter. iFood, the national market leader, has filed a civil lawsuit in the 1st Business and Arbitration-Related Disputes Court of São Paulo against Keeta for unfair competition practices.
In addition to Keeta, which began operating in Brazil in October 2025, iFood's lawsuit also names Meituan, the Chinese company that controls iFood and is the world's largest food delivery company, as a defendant. The Brazilian company, led by Diego Barreto, is seeking R$1 million in damages for moral harm.
NeoFeed gained access to the initial 20-page petition, filed in the early evening of Tuesday, May 19, in which iFood claims to have evidence that Keeta was behind the approaches made by Asian consulting firms to current and former employees of the company, offering payments in exchange for sensitive iFood information.
"The goal of the interactions was not only to obtain public information about the delivery market in Brazil. The consulting firms sought to gather various confidential data about iFood's business, including economic and financial indicators, future investment plans, relationships with partner establishments, among other topics," the company states in the lawsuit.
The document filed with the court details these approaches, which began in March 2025, with episodes recorded up to April 2026. Most of these interactions occurred via the LinkedIn social network, through private messages.
To that end, the company followed the trail of several "paid" meetings held with the then iFood sales executive, Matheus Santana. The company filed a criminal complaint against the former employee and a search and seizure warrant against his electronic devices.
In the lawsuit, the company says that the then-employee held five online meetings between April and June 2025, based on contacts made by the consulting firm China Insights Consultancy (CIC). He was dismissed from iFood in April of last year. Santana claims, in messages also stated in the lawsuit, that he received R$ 5,000 for the conversations.
“In a WhatsApp group with other current and former employees, Matheus extensively recounted his interactions with CIC and the defendants [Keeta and Meituan]. He sent audio messages detailing his relationship with the consulting firm, disclosed amounts paid by CIC, forwarded lists of questions about iFood's business, and encouraged other group members to contact CIC representatives to schedule similar conversations,” says iFood's lawsuit.
In the investigation, as stated in the initial petition, he confirmed that he had held paid meetings in exchange for confidential information. Two cell phones, a laptop, and a hard drive were seized from Santana, and analysis confirmed that the meetings did indeed take place.
The company says it was able to reach Keeta through these approaches after filing a lawsuit in the United States against the Zoom platform, demanding that it release the emails of those who allegedly participated in meetings with Santana.
The legal process in the American courts began in February of this year. And, according to iFood, the evidence showing the direct connection to the owner of Keeta arrived on April 30th of this year.
Meetings via Zoom
In its response, Zoom revealed, in the documents provided, that at least seven emails were linked to the Chinese competitor, identified by the domain @meituan.com. However, instead of names, the emails contained numbers, which, according to iFood, "constitutes strong evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal the identity and actual involvement of the real representatives of the defendants."
"At the end of this entire process, it was possible to obtain conclusive proof that the defendants did indeed meet with at least one of their employees repeatedly to obtain strategic information about iFood's business, and paid him substantial remuneration in exchange for this information," the company states in the petition.
The company also reports that, in another conversation, a representative from the consulting firm CIC, who participated in the meeting with Santana, named Fiona Fan, requested "insights," also via LinkedIn, from another iFood employee on topics such as relationships with supermarkets, logistics model, and delivery driver management.
In the process, iFood attaches screenshots of these conversations, in addition to the detailed report sent by Zoom and the messages that Santana himself exchanged with colleagues about the case.
Approaches from other consulting firms were also reported, such as SixDegrees and the Chinese firm BCC Global, which, according to the petition, "asked several questions about the investment plan of iFood's CEO, Diego Barreto, and changes to its organizational and business structure."
The approach was made by Liangwei Gu, with screenshots included in the case file. On LinkedIn, she states she is from Hong Kong and says she is a "project manager at a global investment consulting firm," without specifying the name. NeoFeed attempted to contact Gu via social media, but received no response.
In another case, a representative from GSR, based in Hong Kong, approached three iFood employees to offer Keeta a sort of "advice" on its entry into Brazil. The company offered between US$400 and US$500 per hour of conversation. There is an email detailing this approach, dated May 16, 2025.
According to what iFood stated in its initial petition, the modus operandi of approaching employees through various consulting firms had the main objective of making it difficult to discover who the real interested parties in this data were.
The Brazilian company, which is part of the Dutch group Prosus, also states that it sent extrajudicial notifications to these consulting firms, but that the practices were not remedied. "The consulting firms, it seems, are merely replaceable instruments used by the defendants to obtain information about iFood while remaining anonymous."
The civil action filed by iFood is signed by lawyers Eduardo Secchi Munhoz, João Vicente Lapa de Carvalho, Ana Gonçalves, and Caio de Magalhães Brega, from the law firm E.Munhoz Advogados.
Unfair competition is defined by the Industrial Property Law (LPI), in its article 195, and includes cases of espionage and bribery. The penalty is imprisonment from three months to one year, in addition to a fine. However, the action does not involve the criminal sphere.
The company is using article 209 of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (LPI), which guarantees the right to compensation for potential practical damages. In addition to moral damages, iFood is also claiming material damages, without specifying amounts, but is requesting a detailed assessment of lost profits.
The market leader in delivery services in the country cites Keeta and Meituan's economic capacity, as well as the projected investment of R$ 5.6 billion in Brazilian operations, to justify its request for R$ 1 million in moral damages from the two companies.
In the lawsuit, iFood is asking the court to order the companies to stop contacting current and former employees, either directly or through consultants, and to stop seeking confidential information from the competitor, under penalty of a daily fine of R$ 100,000.
The company, founded in 2011 in Jundiaí, São Paulo, reveals that it now has more than 65 million customers in Brazil, with over 500,000 active establishments and delivery drivers on its digital platform. iFood operates in more than 2,000 municipalities and generates more than R$ 8 billion per month.
A survey by Getnet shows that the food delivery sector grossed R$ 79 billion in 2025, a 12.7% increase over the previous year. During that period, the average ticket price was R$ 66.21 per meal, 12% higher than that recorded for in-restaurant dining. The monthly volume reached 150 million orders, a 24% increase.
In addition to Keeta, 99Food, controlled by the Chinese company DiDi, returned to operating in the Brazilian market in June 2025. The company had been operating there since 2019, but left the country in 2023.
Contacted by NeoFeed to comment on the lawsuit against Keeta, iFood stated, in a note, that it "has already taken legal and extrajudicial measures against these unfair competition practices."
"The company will continue working to identify the companies involved and promote an ethical environment that respects the law within the Brazilian delivery ecosystem," the statement concludes.
