The Moroccan Competition Council is currently pursuing a formal investigation into alleged anti-competitive conduct in the food delivery sector. Although the authority has not officially named the entity under scrutiny, widespread coverage by national media outlets has identified Glovo as the operator concerned. The proceedings were prompted by a complaint submitted in October 2024 by ORA Technologies, the Moroccan start-up behind the Kooul delivery application. The complaint alleges that Glovo implemented contractual practices aimed at excluding competitors from the market and, thereby, abused its dominant position in the Moroccan market.
Alleged conduct and market effects
According to the complainant, Glovo required partner restaurants to enter into exclusive arrangements, effectively prohibiting them from operating concurrently on other platforms. The complaint alleges that these exclusivity clauses obstruct market access for new and constrained the ability of existing competitors to scale their operations. Hence, these terms could be deemed an undue restriction of commercial freedom and result in the foreclosure of the downstream market for rival applications, including Kooul. If substantiated, such conduct may constitute an abuse of dominance under Moroccan competition law.
Investigation and procedure
This conduct potentially violates Art 6 Moroccan Competition Law, which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position to affect market access or creates exclusionary effects. Where the Moroccan Competition Council has material indications that an undertaking is engaged in such conduct, Art 72 empowers the Council to carry out dawn raids. Under this provision the Council On 22 October 2024 raided Glovo's Casablanca office.
On 28 May 2025, the Council issued a formal communication confirming the continuation of its investigation. In keeping with procedural confidentiality rules, the Council's statement did not identify the company involved. However, the timing and context strongly suggest that the matter concerns the complaint filed against Glovo. This was also picked up by the press. The Council has not issued any formal findings or statements of objection at this stage.
The current stage of the investigation is non-contentious and pre-adjudicative. Should the authority determine that sufficient evidence exists to suggest a violation of the Moroccan Competition Law, it may issue a Statement of Objections to the concerned undertaking. The recipient of such notice would then be entitled to submit written observations and request an oral hearing before the Council's decision-making panel. If a determination is reached that the undertaking violated the law, the Council is authorized to impose sanctions, including administrative fines proportionate to the gravity and duration of the infraction. It may also order modifications to contractual terms, or the cessation of specific practices deemed contrary to competition principles.
Broader implication and context
This investigation forms part of a broader regulatory effort to address competition issues in the digital economy. The food delivery sector, characterized by platform-based intermediation and network effects, raises novel legal challenges under traditional competition regimes. The focus on exclusivity clauses reflects increasing concern over practices that could entrench incumbents and marginalize smaller operators. The outcome of the present proceedings may set an important precedent for future enforcement in other digital sectors where similar market conditions and practices prevail.
If Glovo is ultimately found to have infringed Moroccan competition law, the reputational and regulatory implications may extend beyond the domestic market. Competition authorities in other jurisdictions frequently coordinate or reference findings from peer regulators, particularly in digital sectors involving multinational actors. A formal infringement decision could raise barriers for Glovo's expansion into new jurisdictions, as domestic regulators may take a more cautious or adversarial stance in reviewing market entry, merger notifications, or platform conduct. Additionally, such a decision could encourage complaints or investigations in markets with similar business models, increasing the company's legal exposure internationally.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
