Swiggy Listings Investigation: Duplicate Kitchens Impacting Consumers

The investigation from Startup Superb reveals that at least five restaurant entries operating simultaneously on Swiggy in Gurugram appear to be different names for the same kitchen, raising serious concerns regarding the platform’s verification processes, review authenticity, advertising fairness, and even metrics presented to investors. The five listings—Momo Palace China, Crispy Crunch Momos, The Momos House, Momo Factory, and Humpty Momos—utilise the same FSSAI license number (20821005002678), share the same physical location in Sector 11, Gurugram, and have almost identical menus, prices, and food images.

Startup Superb noted that all five listings were active on Swiggy at the same time. This indicates five different restaurant profiles linked to a single kitchen. The implications extend far beyond mere duplicate listings, particularly because Swiggy’s onboarding procedure is designed to verify restaurant credentials prior to accepting listings. The FSSAI number serves as a unique identifier, and Swiggy’s systems should have flagged duplicates upon registering the second, third, fourth, and fifth storefronts using identical credentials. Yet, they were approved without issue. Such a situation raises troubling questions surrounding Swiggy’s verification integrity. It suggests potential inadequacies in their de-duplication processes regarding crucial food compliance identifiers or that those processes may have been intentionally bypassed.

This scenario prompts significant considerations for a public company dealing with millions of consumers and merchants. Earlier this month, Startup Superb sent comprehensive inquiries to Swiggy regarding how these listings passed verification, whether duplicate storefronts affect ratings and advertising fairness, and the way the company defines restaurant partner metrics in disclosures to investors. Swiggy chose not to engage with the inquiries.

Sources acquainted with Swiggy’s merchant onboarding process informed Startup Superb that numerous listings passing verification with identical FSSAI credentials and addresses likely require more than a minor technology oversight. According to one source, five identical instances are not accidental, suggesting that someone should have noticed the existing credentials at some point.

This raises another area of concern: whether duplicate storefronts offer competitive advantages that benefit operators and potentially internal teams, easing the onboarding approval process. The immediate impact on consumers is apparent. Swiggy’s trust model relies on users believing that each listing corresponds to a distinct restaurant. However, if one kitchen can consistently appear with new identities, the integrity of the platform’s rating and review system deteriorates. For example, if a consumer in Sector 11 orders from Momo Palace China, finds the food unsatisfactory, and leaves a one-star review, they might later choose Crispy Crunch Momos, attracted by the absence of negative feedback. Yet, the food may arrive from the same kitchen, rendered by the same staff. Their crucial one-star review, serving as their sole protective measure, is effectively nullified by a new listing.

It appears that on Swiggy, a poorly rated restaurant can simply rebrand with a different name without consequence. The incentives provided by the platform’s algorithms compound the issue. Each new listing starts with a clean slate reputation. Negative feedback vanishes, and recommendation systems treat the restaurant as new, leading to a reset in search rankings. In essence, duplicate storefronts are functioning as mechanisms for reputation laundering within the platform economy.

This challenge extends into advertising. Swiggy generates revenue from promoted listings. One operator managing five storefronts can potentially secure multiple sponsored spots simultaneously, thereby excluding genuine competitors that operate with a single identity. According to another source familiar with platform advertising, this setup establishes an unfair advantage; one truthful restaurant occupies one slot, while another operator controls five.

The findings also elicit questions regarding Swiggy’s disclosures to investors. Swiggy frequently reports numbers related to restaurant partners as a critical marketplace metric. However, Startup Superb inquired whether these figures reflect unique physical food establishments or total active storefronts. Swiggy did not provide a comment and chose to remain disengaged from the inquiries. This distinction is significant. If a single kitchen can emerge five times, the actual marketplace scale may appear misleading based on how “restaurant partners” are quantified.

Interestingly, FSSAI regulations might permit a single license to cover multiple establishments sharing the same name in a local area. However, why are consumers on Swiggy shown multiple restaurant identities that seemingly represent separate establishments but are tied to the same kitchen without proper disclosure? Ultimately, this raises a fundamental inquiry: when users navigate food delivery apps, are they truly selecting from various restaurants, or simply different names linked to the same kitchen?