Geral
Caso 99Food x Keeta: o que a decisão do TJSP revela sobre Brand Bidding e concorrência desleal
BranddiIP Team ·
The recent decision of the São Paulo Court of Justice, which condemned 99Food for unfair competition against Keeta, raised a red alert for any company that invests in Google Ads and brand building.
The case, which involves the use of the keyword “Keeta” by the competitor to divert searches and inflate costs, legally reinforces what experts in performance have been identifying for years: brand bidding is a real, silent and extremely damaging threat for brands of all sizes.
Continue reading!
How the 99Food x Keeta case exposed the impact of the misuse of brands in advertisements
According to the process, upon realizing Keeta's entry into the Brazilian market, 99Food started to buy the term “Keeta” on Google Ads, resulting in any consumer searching for the brand being directed to 99Food ads. This pushed Keeta's legitimate content down and captured high-intent traffic, damaging performance and confusing the user.
In the decision, the judge classified the practice as “parasitic exploitation of the attractive power of another's brand”, making it clear that, even when the brand is not mentioned in the ad text, the simple use as a keyword already constitutes unfair competition.
For the court, this is an intentional diversion of clientele, especially serious when it occurs between companies that operate in the same sector.
This understanding reinforces that brand bidding is not just a marketing or digital strategy discussion — it is also a legal issue, with a direct impact on reputation, revenue and competitive equity.
Why Brand Bidding hurts campaign performance so much
The case clearly exposes the classic effects of brand bidding:
- Artificial inflation of CPC in institutional campaigns;
- Loss of valuable clicks to opportunistic competitors;
- Increased CAC and reduced ROI, even with well-optimized campaigns;
- Consumer confusion, which receives stimuli from companies that do not searched for;
- Damage to the brand, which loses its natural space in searches.
In 2024 and 2025, a growing number of companies reported a significant increase in unfair competition attacks when purchasing branded terms. Many only discover the problem after a drop in conversions or escalation of costs — when the damage is already advanced.
For this reason, prevention is as important as correction.
How Branddi protects brands and avoids losses like those suffered by Keeta
Branddi acts precisely where the 99Food x Keeta case demonstrates the greatest fragility: the lack of visibility regarding the misuse of brand terms in advertisements. Our ecosystem integrates:
- 24/7 intelligent monitoring of institutional keywords;
- Accurate identification of competitors, affiliates and third parties who misuse your brand;
- Unlimited takedown actions, notifications and friendly mediation;
- Legal support, when necessary;
- Proven results, such as reduction of up to 70% in CPC and recovery of up to 30% of the best clicks.
In an increasingly competitive digital scenario, brand protection also becomes a performance strategy. Cases like Keeta's reinforce how risky it is to ignore this front.
So that your marketing and performance planning does not face this same problem in 2026, it is essential to have a specialized solution like Branddi.
If you want to know if your brand is being targeted for brand bidding — or prevent this from happening — talk to a from our consultants and discover how to protect your results efficiently.