Delhi Consumer Commission: Swiggy Cannot Claim Safe Harbor on Dineout Pricing
A Delhi consumer commission ruled that Swiggy cannot escape responsibility for misrepresenting "cost for two" pricing on its Dineout service. The platform and restaurant were found jointly liable.
The Delhi Consumer Commission ruled on September 21, 2026, that food delivery platform Swiggy cannot claim immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act for misleading pricing information.
The case involved a consumer who booked a table via Swiggy Dineout in April 2024. The listing displayed a "cost for two" of INR 1,500, suggesting INR 750 per person. However, the actual bill was INR 1,050 for vegetarian buffet and INR 1,100 for non-vegetarian buffet per person. An additional 10% service charge was also levied, which the restaurant refused to remove.
Swiggy argued it was merely an intermediary and not responsible for restaurant-provided details, seeking protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. The commission found that the "cost for two" figure was displayed "mischievously" to mislead consumers and was not indicated as an estimate. Swiggy's own terms and conditions did not classify the figure as approximate or non-binding.
Both Swiggy, as the platform where the misleading advertisement was displayed without scrutiny, and Themis Barbeque House, as the owner of the advertisement, were held responsible. The commission noted that Swiggy had access to accurate pricing information at the time of booking but continued to display the lower figure without correction or a disclaimer.
This ruling extends intermediary liability beyond food platforms, impacting e-commerce and social media platforms. Previously, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had issued notices to quick-commerce platforms like Blinkit over consumer complaints regarding food quality, questioning their intermediary safe-harbor claims.