Swiggy Investigation: Kitchen Duplication Issues and Consumer Trust Concerns

Swiggy’s service is under scrutiny due to an investigation by Startup Superb, which has uncovered that at least five restaurant listings operating concurrently on the platform in Gurugram appear to represent the same physical kitchen using different names. This situation raises considerable concerns regarding the verification processes of the platform, the integrity of reviews, the fairness of advertising, and even the metrics reported to investors.

Identical Listings: The Five Restaurants

The five listings found are Momo Palace China, Crispy Crunch Momos, The Momos House, Momo Factory, and Humpty Momos. All share the same FSSAI license number (20821005002678), the same address located in Sector 11, Gurugram, and nearly identical menus, pricing, and food images. Startup Superb noted that all five storefronts were live on Swiggy simultaneously.

Consequences of Duplicate Listings

This situation suggests that Swiggy’s onboarding procedure seemingly fails to adequately verify restaurant credentials prior to listing them. The FSSAI number is meant to be a unique identifier. When subsequent listings emerged using identical details, Swiggy’s systems should have flagged them. However, these listings were approved nonetheless, raising unsettling questions about the efficacy of their verification processes. Either Swiggy lacks essential de-duplication checks for such important compliance identifiers, or these safeguards exist yet were circumvented, both scenarios are troubling for a company that serves millions of consumers and merchants.

Implications for Consumers

Startup Superb reached out to Swiggy earlier this month with detailed inquiries about how these listings passed verification, whether duplicate storefronts affect ratings and advertising fairness, and how the company defines metrics for restaurant partners in its disclosures to investors. Swiggy opted not to participate further in this discussion.

According to sources familiar with Swiggy’s merchant onboarding process, the repeated clearance of multiple listings with identical FSSAI credentials and addresses should not occur due to a mere technological oversight. One insider commented that consistently seeing five listings under identical credentials indicates that at some point, the issue should have been recognised.

Repercussions on Trust and Consumer Decision-Making

The existence of duplicate listings can lead to significant advantages for the operators involved, as well as potentially aiding internal teams with onboarding approvals. This has immediate repercussions for consumers. Swiggy’s trust mechanism relies on users perceiving each listing as indicative of a distinct restaurant. However, if one kitchen can continually present itself under new identities, the platform’s rating and review systems begin to falter.

For instance, a consumer in Sector 11 who ordered from Momo Palace China last month and experienced poor service might leave a one-star review. This week, in an attempt to avoid that particular listing, the consumer might select Crispy Crunch Momos instead, thinking it represents a different restaurant. The food might come from the same kitchen prepared by the same staff, thereby nullifying their previous review. On Swiggy, a poorly performing restaurant can simply rebrand and continue operating.

Advertising and Investor Concerns

Every new listing effectively resets its reputation, causing negative feedback to disappear. Recommendation systems treat the restaurant as a fresh establishment, with search rankings reverting back to the beginning as well. This allows duplicate storefronts to act as reputational laundering tools within the platform’s economy. Furthermore, Swiggy generates revenue by promoting listings, so one operator managing multiple storefronts from the same kitchen could leverage multiple slots simultaneously, thus marginalising honest competitors operating with just one identity.

These findings pose serious questions about the accuracy of Swiggy’s investor disclosures. The company habitually reports the number of restaurant partners as a vital marketplace measure. However, Startup Superb has sought clarification on whether those numbers reflect unique, physical food establishments or simply the total number of active storefronts. Swiggy declined to clarify this matter.

The Regulatory Landscape

Interestingly, FSSAI regulations may permit one license to cover multiple establishments that share the same name within a local vicinity. Nevertheless, the issue remains: why are consumers on Swiggy receiving what seems to be multiple independent restaurants tied to the same kitchen without proper disclosure? This ultimately leads to a critical question: when users explore food delivery applications, are they genuinely selecting from different restaurants, or are they merely choosing from different names linked to the same kitchen?