SnappPay Found Guilty of Anticompetitive Contract Clauses

Iran’s Competition Council has ruled against SnappPay, finding the company guilty of including anticompetitive clauses in its short-term installment purchase agreements with retailers.

Just a week after issuing a ruling on a separate complaint involving SnappFood, the Council has now taken aim at another arm of the Snapp Group. In its latest session, the Council found that Atlas Tejarat Novin Diba Co.—operating under the SnappPay brand—had imposed exclusivity terms in its contracts with retailers, in violation of fair competition principles.

Under the ruling, SnappPay must immediately remove all restrictive clauses that limit retailers’ ability to work with competing Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services or exit existing contracts. The company is also prohibited from including such terms in future agreements.

This decision, focused on the BNPL market—a rapidly growing sector for short-term consumer credit—comes after months of expert analysis, hearings, and deliberations involving both parties and independent economists from the National Competition Center.

The complaint was filed by two rival BNPL providers, Afra Digital Capital (operator of AzkiVam) and Noavaran Pardakht Majazi Iranian (DigiPay), who alleged that SnappPay’s contractual terms obstructed retailers from partnering with alternative service providers, thereby distorting competition in the market.

Following a detailed examination of SnappPay’s contracts and the structure of the market, the Council concluded that the company holds a dominant position and has engaged in practices that restrict competition.

The ruling cited violations of several provisions within Article 45 of the Law on the Implementation of General Policies of Principle 44 of the Constitution—specifically clauses addressing abuse of market dominance and restrictive practices that hamper competition.

The Council’s reasoning centered on how SnappPay’s contractual restrictions, combined with its market power—bolstered by the sheer volume of users across the broader Snapp ecosystem—effectively eliminated meaningful competition and limited retailers’ freedom to choose their business partners.

Throughout the investigation, both AzkiVam and DigiPay were supported by BANA, the Center for Development and Competition Studies. BANA provided key legal and economic analyses, helping to draft the complaints, compile evidence, define the relevant market, and explain the anticompetitive impact of SnappPay’s behavior. According to the Council, these materials were instrumental in shaping the final decision and highlighting the exclusionary nature of SnappPay’s contract terms.