---
title: "Didi 'backstabs' Meituan: Chinese companies fight, foreign capital benefits?"
type: "Topics"
locale: "zh-HK"
url: "https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/topics/33237811.md"
description: "Recently, the drama of the food delivery battle is also being played out in the Brazilian market, far across the ocean. However, the main competitors are not the local food delivery giants, but two Chinese companies—Didi 99food and Meituan Keeta. Didi has invested a whopping 1.1 billion yuan, not to challenge the local food delivery giant iFood, which holds 80% of the market share, but to completely block Meituan, which has not yet officially entered the local market. The method of blocking is no stranger to everyone—it is the notorious "pick one of two" strategy that has already gained infamy in the Chinese market. In multiple news reports disclosed by local media, it is mentioned..."
datetime: "2025-08-22T07:18:37.000Z"
locales:
  - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/topics/33237811.md)
  - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/topics/33237811.md)
  - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/topics/33237811.md)
author: "[躺平指数](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/profiles/8832439.md)"
---

> 支持的語言: [English](https://longbridge.com/en/topics/33237811.md) | [简体中文](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/topics/33237811.md)


# Didi 'backstabs' Meituan: Chinese companies fight, foreign capital benefits?

![图片](https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2025/9051f2fed535a93d0c5a61b99294d133?x-oss-process=style/lg)

Recently, in the Brazilian market far across the ocean, a similar drama of food delivery wars is unfolding. However, the main competitors are not the local food delivery giants, but two Chinese companies—Didi 99food and Meituan Keeta. Didi has spent 1.1 billion yuan not to challenge the local food delivery giant iFood, which holds 80% of the market share, but to completely block Meituan, which has not yet officially entered the local market.

The means of blocking are also familiar to everyone—**it's the infamous "choose one" strategy in the Chinese market**. In multiple news reports disclosed by local media, Didi 99food offered Brazilian local merchants high subsidies that are hard to refuse, with only one purpose: they must not cooperate with Meituan Keeta, but can continue to cooperate with the market leader iFood.

The design of this "choose one" clause is so precise—Didi requires merchants to choose only one of the two Chinese companies, Didi and Meituan, for cooperation, leaving Brazilian local media puzzled: **Why is a Chinese company so targeted at another Chinese company?**

Additionally, this internal struggle has made the real local competitor iFood the winner. Facing the entry of Chinese companies, iFood quickly announced the largest investment plan in its history; meanwhile, iFood's parent company Prosus began selling its Meituan shares, directly putting pressure on Meituan in terms of capital, while also reserving ammunition for iFood.

In our view, this is not just a simple commercial rivalry between two Chinese companies, but a typical case of "internal competition externalization" by Chinese companies. More than 20 years ago, Chinese motorcycles triggered a brutal price war in Southeast Asia, and their vicious competition directly led to the collapse of the reputation of Chinese motorcycle brands in the local market, with market share plummeting, **allowing Japanese motorcycle brands to reap the benefits**. How to avoid such history from repeating itself is actually a question that every Chinese company going overseas must consider.

_**01**_   **Unbelievable Business Strategy**

On August 18, Didi's food delivery platform "99Food" filed a lawsuit against "Keeta" in the São Paulo court, citing trademark infringement and unfair competition. This is also a continuation of the recent months of clashes between Didi and Meituan in Brazil.

On May 12 this year, Brazilian President Lula met with Meituan founder and CEO Wang Xing, witnessing the signing of an investment agreement between the Brazilian Export Investment Promotion Agency (ApexBrasil) and Keeta. Meituan announced that Keeta will officially enter Brazil in the coming months and plans to invest 1 billion US dollars over five years to support the development of the project. Subsequently, in June, Didi also announced that its Brazilian food delivery business "99Food" officially returned to Brazil, with the first stop landing in the central city of Goiânia, trying to make a comeback in this failed market.

Afterwards, Didi directly targeted Meituan, launching a series of "exclusive" competitions.

Initially, Didi purchased "Keeta" keywords at a high price on Google to confuse its search results, so that when users search for "Keeta," 99Food's ads are displayed first. After Meituan's lawsuit, 99Food was issued an injunction by the São Paulo court on August 11 local time, requiring it to stop the behavior within three days, with a daily fine of 20,000 reais for overdue.

![图片](https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2025/bad14715ff8b63982738257d0e7205d9?x-oss-process=style/lg)

Afterwards, Didi was not discouraged and started the "choose one" strategy mentioned earlier. A person from a Brazilian catering consulting service company stated on social media that many of his clients received Didi's "semi-exclusive" offers, with one client receiving an offer of 6 million reais (equivalent to nearly 8 million yuan). The authoritative Brazilian media "O Globo" also confirmed this behavior.

![图片](https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2025/2b16d88a2240370e55abd35e27b56210?x-oss-process=style/lg)

![图片](https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2025/829233d513e1805dabeabe2779bc1dd4?x-oss-process=style/lg)

Contract Terms Translation

**Didi's "choose one" clause design is extremely precise—clearly prohibiting merchants from cooperating with Meituan/Keeta, but not restricting cooperation with iFood**. In related reports by Brazilian business media "Isto É Dinheiro," Didi 99Food's communication director Bruno Rossini responded that similar exclusive cooperation agreements were indeed signed with some restaurants, but not "all restaurants," stating "this is a strategy aimed at core merchants."

![图片](https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2025/5b0db5a865d5569ab734d6b9574e17b1?x-oss-process=style/lg)

As we introduced at the beginning of the article, by providing merchants with a huge advance payment of over 1.1 billion yuan to prohibit cooperation with Keeta but not restrict cooperation with iFood, it is a targeted market exclusion mechanism, just to prevent Keeta from officially launching in Brazil. In the lawsuit documents, Keeta stated that the "exclusive clauses" signed by 99Food with core merchants violate competition law, seeking a court ruling to invalidate the clauses and prohibit their use in future contracts.

![图片](https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2025/96897b72acf897737aa71b686416e82d?x-oss-process=style/lg)

Afterwards, Didi resorted to a tough move, suing Meituan Keeta for trademark infringement, demanding Keeta to change its logo, determined not to let Meituan smoothly enter Brazil. Didi believes that the Keeta brand uses its signature color yellow, **and claims that in the car rearview mirror, Keeta's "ee" appears as "99"**. Of course, Keeta is also tough, responding that Keeta's brand color is inherited from Meituan's brand yellow, and its logo and color scheme have been associated with the Meituan brand for over 14 years.

![图片](https://pub.pbkrs.com/uploads/2025/a4c12433312c4eca82b52cfb48c68305?x-oss-process=style/lg)

All of the above are a microcosm of the competition between two major Chinese giants overseas, and it is regrettable to see Chinese companies bringing "internal competition" abroad again. Especially Didi, choosing to focus its main firepower on Meituan, which has not yet officially entered the market, is a fundamental strategic mistake.

It should be noted that Didi has spent over 1.1 billion yuan signing exclusive contracts with merchants, occupying a considerable proportion of its investment in Brazil. Considering the Brazilian food delivery market size is about 12 billion US dollars, Didi previously held up to 5% of the market share, even if development goes smoothly, annual revenue is likely to be less than 5 billion yuan.

The food delivery industry itself is a low-margin industry, and JP Morgan's report shows that the forecast net profit margin of nine major global food delivery platforms in 2024 is between 1.5%-3.3%, with an arithmetic average of 2.2%. Even if Didi can completely occupy the market share that Meituan might have obtained, it will take several years to recover this investment.

Finally, using limited resources to attack potential competitors rather than challenging the existing market leader's strategy violates the basic principle that new entrants should unite externally. At the same time, this is a high-cost, low-efficiency competition model, investing a large amount of funds in defensive competition, causing Didi to lose the opportunity to use these resources to improve services and expand the market. The exclusive clauses themselves pose antitrust risks, easily leading to multiple lawsuits against Didi, with legal risks increasing sharply.

Previously, the Brazilian local food delivery giant iFood was heavily fined for requiring merchants to sign exclusive agreements, and local regulators have also improved a series of antitrust rules at the legislative level. Didi and Meituan are both new entrants to this market, and starting with a full load of lawsuits is not beneficial for subsequent business development.

_**02**_   **"Internal Competition Externalization" Adds Consumption**

Didi's various actions against Meituan in Brazil, **are actually a "dragon-slaying youth eventually becoming a dragon" story**.

In 2018, Didi acquired the Brazilian local travel platform 99, officially entering the South American market; in 2019, taking advantage of the popularity of the food delivery track, Didi launched the food delivery business 99Food, trying to replicate the "travel + food delivery" model. Within two years, 99Food once gained a 5% market share locally, becoming a new force in the local food delivery industry.

But soon, the local giant iFood, which holds over 80% of the market share, began "choose one" operations, forcing merchants to sign exclusive agreements, either only cooperating with iFood or giving up platform traffic support. Multiple platforms, including Didi 99Food and Uber Eats, were forced to suspend food delivery services, and 99Food was eventually forced to retain only low-frequency grocery delivery.

Returning to the present, Didi had the opportunity to unite with Chinese companies to overthrow iFood's dominance in the Brazilian food delivery market, but he did not do so.

It should be noted that the monopoly position of the local giant iFood has not been stable in recent years, and iFood's high commissions have triggered multiple merchant protests, and antitrust regulators have continuously intervened in iFood, providing an excellent opportunity for Meituan Keeta, Didi 99Food, and other outsiders to jointly break the monopoly. However, Didi's competitive behavior actually indirectly helped iFood stabilize the situation, which is more unfavorable for its own breakthrough in the long run.

Facing the aggressive Chinese companies, iFood began to exert efforts in both commercial and capital aspects. On August 5, iFood announced that it would invest 17 billion reais (about 22 billion yuan) in Brazil by March 2026, which is the largest investment plan in the company's history. This investment was announced **after Chinese companies began entering the Brazilian market, clearly to respond to the competitive threat from China**.

On the capital side, due to Meituan Keeta's expansion in the Brazilian and Middle Eastern food delivery markets, it indirectly threatens Prosus-controlled iFood and Delivery Hero (which owns Talabat), Prosus has sold about 250 million US dollars of Meituan shares, putting pressure on Meituan's stock price. Prosus is Tencent's largest shareholder, holding Meituan shares currently worth **about 4 billion US dollars** due to Tencent's early distribution of Meituan shares to shareholders.

As of now, the Brazilian food delivery war involving multiple parties has not yet ended, and Meituan is struggling under the pressure of both Chinese and foreign companies.

And this extreme competitive thinking reflects a deep-seated dilemma: **some Chinese companies in overseas markets aim not to create value or serve customers, but simply to eliminate competitors**. This thinking not only does not meet the requirements of modern business civilization but also violates the basic principles of sustainable development for enterprises.

In the Chinese internet industry, "you die, I live" competition mode has become the norm, and companies are accustomed to gaining market position by eliminating competitors. This thinking may have its rationality in the era of wild growth, but in today's overseas market, it may produce completely different effects.

In overseas markets, especially in emerging markets like Brazil, Chinese companies face challenges mainly from cultural differences, regulatory environment, brand recognition, and localization challenges in multiple dimensions. Companies need to adapt to local business culture and consumer habits, comply with local laws and regulations and business norms, build consumer trust in Chinese brands, and establish effective local operation systems. These are more complex and important than suppressing domestic peers.

On July 1, "Qiushi.com" published an article warning to deeply understand and comprehensively rectify "involution-style" competition. The article pointed out that "involution-style" competition traps various entities in low-price, low-quality, and ineffective competition, breaking the boundaries and bottom lines of market competition, and disrupting market order. And "internal competition externalization" not only cannot help Chinese companies gain competitive advantage but may also damage the international reputation of the entire industry, ultimately leading to the common failure of all participants.

Although current regulations have relatively limited direct jurisdiction over overseas, **the trend of preventing "internal competition externalization" and ultimately damaging the reputation of Chinese brands will not change**, Chinese companies must find a sustainable overseas competition path that continuously creates value.

_**03**_**Conclusion**

In the context of globalization, competition in overseas markets should not be a simple extension of domestic competition, but a higher-level value creation activity.

This redefinition should cover several core shifts: from eliminating competitors to creating customer value, the core goal of enterprises should be to provide better products and services to local consumers; from short-term share grabbing to long-term brand building, emphasizing the construction of brand image and market reputation; from zero-sum game to win-win cooperation, seeking possibilities of cooperation with other Chinese companies to jointly face challenges from local competitors.

But now, the "internal competition externalization" initiated by Didi not only harms the interests of the enterprise itself but also affects the overall image of Chinese companies, violating the basic spirit of cooperation and win-win in the era of globalization. In a world of interconnectedness, zero-sum thinking is outdated, and win-win cooperation is the way to go. Only in this way can Chinese companies gain real competitive advantages in the global market and create greater value for global consumers.$DiDi(DIDIY.US) $MEITUAN(03690.HK) 

_**Disclaimer: This article is for learning and communication purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.**_

### 相關股票

- [MEITUAN-WR (83690.HK)](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/83690.HK.md)
- [Meituan (MPNGY.US)](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/MPNGY.US.md)
- [MEITUAN (03690.HK)](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/03690.HK.md)
- [DiDi (DIDIY.US)](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/DIDIY.US.md)
- [Meituan HK SDR 5to1 (HMTD.SG)](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/HMTD.SG.md)