Delhi restaurateur alleges Zomato 'manipulated; availability listings; company responds

A Delhi restaurateur has levelled allegations of manipulation against food delivery platform Zomato, asserting that his restaurant was repeatedly shown as unavailable on the app even during peak hours. Gagandeep Singh Sapra, who owns Tadka Rani in Greater Kailash 1, shared video evidence online to support his claims.

Sapra recorded himself opening the Zomato app and searching for Tadka Rani, where the restaurant appeared marked as unavailable. He then searched for several neighbouring eateries, all of which were shown as open and accepting orders.

Here’s video proof of how rider allocation is being manipulated at @zomato .

For 31 days we’ve escalated this, and nothing has changed. Our restaurant is repeatedly shown as ‘unavailable’ at peak hours while nearby outlets within 50 meters keep getting riders.

This isn’t… pic.twitter.com/syHpTkvVsi

— Gagandeep Singh Sapra (@TheBigGeek) November 23, 2025

He stated on X that the footage demonstrated manipulation in rider allocation on the platform, adding that his outlet continued to appear offline while nearby competitors within 50 metres remained active. He further said he had been raising the issue with Zomato for 31 days without resolution.

In subsequent comments, the restaurateur accused Zomato of suppressing his restaurant’s visibility to push for higher commission rates. He alleged that the company already took more than 52 per cent of sales and claimed the intention was to drive that figure significantly higher. He also criticised Zomato founder and CEO Deepinder Goyal, saying the company was unable to control individuals within the team who were allegedly “rigging” the system.

@TheBigGeek - thank you for sharing this. I’m getting this checked ????????

— Aditya Mangla (@adimangla) November 24, 2025

Zomato’s Aditya Mangla responded publicly, informing Sapra that the matter was being examined. Sapra acknowledged the response and said he appreciated the outreach, noting that despite multiple meetings and communications with the company’s teams, a solution had not been offered even after 31 days.