Delivery apps in Peru (Rappi, PedidosYa): order not delivered, damaged, or double-charged

What law governs Rappi, PedidosYa, and similar apps in Peru?

Unlike ride-hailing apps, there is no dedicated sectoral law for delivery apps in Peru. These platforms fall under the general consumer protection framework: Law N.° 29571, Código de Protección y Defensa del Consumidor, strengthened since February 2026 by Legislative Decree N° 1729, which amended the Code specifically for e-commerce — including a requirement that any digital platform offering goods or services maintain complaint mechanisms that are “accessible, effective, and permanently operational,” and that platforms not domiciled in Peru keep at least a working email address for complaints.

However, neither Law 29571 nor Legislative Decree N° 1729 expressly defines what a “digital intermediation platform” is or how responsibility is split between the app, the store, and the delivery driver. The legal definition of “supplier” in Article IV of the Code — people who manufacture, sell, or supply products or provide services — was written before apps like Rappi existed, and doesn’t explicitly mention digital intermediaries. That gap is exactly what Indecopi has been filling, resolution by resolution, since 2025.

Order not delivered, damaged, or incomplete: your right to a fit-for-purpose service

Article 18 of Law 29571 defines idoneidad (fitness for purpose) as “the correspondence between what a consumer expects and what they actually receive, based on what was offered, the advertising and information conveyed, the conditions and circumstances of the transaction.” If you ordered a burger and it never arrived, or it arrived cold, crushed, or missing half the items, that is — in legal terms — a failure of service fitness, not just a bad experience.

Article 19 completes the obligation: “the supplier is responsible for the fitness for purpose and quality of the products and services offered […] as well as for the content and shelf life of the product indicated on its packaging, where applicable.” The underlying question, then, isn’t whether you have a right to complain — you do — but against whom you exercise it: the store, the app, or both.

Is this a “right of withdrawal”? No, and the difference matters

It’s easy to confuse an order that never arrived with the so-called “right of withdrawal” many people associate with online purchases. They aren’t the same thing, and using the wrong argument can get your complaint rejected.

The restitution right under Article 59 of Law 29571 only kicks in “in cases where the supplier has engaged in one of the practices indicated in Article 58” — that is, aggressive, coercive, or deceptive sales methods. It is not a general right to “change your mind” about a purchase you already confirmed and, in the case of food, that may already be en route or partially consumed. If you simply changed your mind after ordering, that isn’t the path. If instead the order never arrived, arrived damaged, arrived incomplete, or the app blocked you from canceling and getting your money back despite the failure, the correct path is fitness for purpose (Articles 18 and 19), not withdrawal.

Who’s responsible: the app, the store, or the delivery driver?

This is where Indecopi has been most active in 2025, and where the pattern is now clear: the platform cannot hide behind being “just an intermediary” to avoid all responsibility, though it also doesn’t automatically absorb every failure by the store.

In Resolution 0635-2025/SPC-INDECOPI, the Specialized Consumer Protection Chamber fined Rappi 45.50 UIT (roughly S/ 243,425) for including clauses in its terms and conditions that exempted it from liability for platform failures, damage caused by delivery drivers, and products delivered in poor condition. According to coverage of this case, Indecopi found that Rappi cannot exonerate itself because the platform “interviene en la asignación y en el desenvolvimiento de los repartidores” (“is involved in assigning and overseeing delivery drivers”) — meaning it retains enough operational control over the service to answer to the consumer, beyond presenting itself as a mere technological facilitator.

In a separate case, resolved through Final Resolution N° 1169-2025/PS3, a consumer ordered a KFC combo through Rappi that never arrived; when they complained, the app refused to cancel the order or refund the money, claiming it couldn’t reach the delivery driver. According to news coverage of this case, “aunque Rappi operaba como intermediario, no había cumplido con su obligación de permitir la cancelación del pedido ni de gestionar adecuadamente el reembolso” (“although Rappi operated as an intermediary, it had not met its obligation to allow the order to be canceled or to properly manage the refund”) — Rappi received a warning for violating Article 19 of the Code, and was ordered to update the order’s status to “canceled” and refund the money.

And in Final Resolution N° 0446-2025/PS3, a customer who ordered four units of a product through Rappi from a store (Metro) received only three. Here Indecopi sanctioned both companies: Rappi with 3.49 UIT for the incomplete delivery and for failing to answer the complaint within the deadline, and Metro with a warning. Both had to refund the missing amount and pay the proceeding’s costs.

The practical lesson from these three cases: when the problem is order management — cancellations, refunds, communication, response deadlines — the app answers directly. When the problem is the product’s content or preparation, the store usually answers first. But when both fail at once, as in the Metro case, Indecopi can sanction both in the same proceeding, so you don’t have to guess correctly who to complain to: you can name both parties.

Double-charged: do you complain to the bank or the app?

A duplicate charge for the same order has, in practice, two possible paths, and they aren’t mutually exclusive.

If the repeated charge shows up on your credit or debit card, the SBS’s Credit and Debit Card Regulation (SBS Resolution N° 6523-2013) requires banks and card issuers to maintain systems for users to report “los cargos indebidos y las operaciones que los usuarios no reconozcan” (“unauthorized charges and transactions users don’t recognize”), and, in its Article 11, gives cardholders a period set in the contract, which cannot be shorter than thirty (30) days from the statement’s delivery date, to object to the content of their statement. In practice, this means you have at least 30 days from when your statement is issued to report the duplicate charge directly to your bank.

If instead the problem is that the app itself won’t fix the error, doesn’t explain it, or refuses to coordinate the refund through its own complaints channel, that is a failure of its obligations as a supplier under the Consumer Code, and you can complain to Indecopi about it independently of the banking process. You don’t have to pick just one: you can report the charge to your bank and, if the app also fails to answer its part of the complaint, escalate that to Indecopi too.

The deadlines you should know

• 15 business days: the maximum time any supplier — including a delivery app — has to respond to a complaint filed through its Libro de Reclamaciones, under the amendment introduced by Law N.° 31435.
• At least 30 days: the minimum window you must have, under the SBS regulation, to flag an unauthorized charge on your credit or debit card statement, counted from the date that statement was issued.

If the 15-business-day deadline passes with no response, or the response doesn’t fix your problem, you already have grounds to take the case to Indecopi.

If you use these apps as a tourist or foreigner in Peru

The protections of the Consumer Protection Code don’t depend on your nationality or immigration status: they apply to anyone consuming a good or service within Peruvian territory. If you ordered food through Rappi or PedidosYa during a trip and the order never arrived or you were overcharged, you can complain through exactly the same channels — inside the app first, then Indecopi — even after you’ve returned to your home country, as long as you keep the evidence of the order and the card charge.