On Monday, November 25th, the European Commission hosted a workshop to discuss Booking.com’s recent compliance report, which detailed the steps that it’s taking to adapt to the Digital Markets Act (DMA) after being named a "gatekeeper" back in May 2024. It was our first chance to get a glance into the EU hospitality industry’s reaction to the report – and there was a definite sense of disappointment in Booking.com’s limited changes. The stakeholders in attendance included representatives from a number of organizations all across Europe, including trade bodies, hospitality tech companies, large chain hotels, and smaller boutique properties – and they all seemed to be united by a belief that Booking.com isn’t doing enough to comply with the DMA.
After attending the workshop, these were some of the things that stood out to us the most – and really highlight where Booking.com may have missed the mark in satisfying their stakeholders, and the European Commission.
Stakeholders felt misrepresented in the public-facing report
Stakeholder associations including the European Hotel Forum and European hospitality trade body HOTREC felt Booking.com’s report implied that they had endorsed Booking’s report when they hadn’t. This is important, because Booking.com’s report used language around stakeholders as a way to validate the claims and decisions put forward.
“We met with Booking once, carefully listened to their description of their intended compliance measures, but we did not express any positive feedback whatsoever.”
-Timothée Giard, European Hotel Forum
Parity Clauses may be gone - but Booking.com has other ways of influencing prices
The overall sentiment in the room was that Booking.com hasn’t done enough to create transparency and accountability in the way it uses prices and other factors to rank hotels on its platform. This came up via a few specific points raised during the workshop.
Internal “price competitiveness” is still a factor in Booking.com’s algorithm
When questioned by multiple stakeholders in last Monday’s session, Booking.com only confirmed that external pricing doesn’t impact its algorithm. But according to them, internal “price competitiveness” can - and Booking.com aren’t very clear on how they determine that.
Booking Sponsored Benefits still allows Booking.com to undercut hotels and control rates
Booking Sponsored Benefits (BSB) is another key way in which Booking.com can still control hotel pricing. If a hotel opts into Payments With Booking, they are automatically opted into BSB, a program through which Booking.com can offer lower rates and undercut partners (just at its own cost). Booking maintains this helps customers and gives them better rates - we would argue it really just helps Booking.com to secure the booking. Stakeholders pointed out the fact that hotels don’t have the option to participate in Payments With Booking without BSB.
“What many hotels would like to do is to use payments by Booking - but not use BSB….It’s about delinking BSB from Payments by Booking.”
Mattias Svanold, Visita Sweden
And all of this exists outside of our big question on parity clauses that remains unaddressed – is Booking.com going against the DMA by only removing parity clauses for hotels in the EU, and not for hotels visited by EU travellers? While this question was raised briefly in the workshop, Booking.com quickly moved past it by confirming that it has kept the same approach that was taken when the OTA had to remove parity requirements in specific European countries prior to the DMA. Will this be sufficient to satisfy the larger scope, and broader intent, of the DMA?
Booking claims to be a third party, but acts as a first party
Booking.com avoided the all-important “self-preferencing” elements of the DMA (which were key in the large impact that the legislation has had on Google) by arguing that it only offers third-parties onsite, not first-party inventory, and therefore can’t self-preference. However, some stakeholders felt that the way that Booking describes its relationship to the travellers – owning the details of the customer from purchase through to check-in, and not allowing hotels that same access – seems much more in line with a first party platform.
“What we've established is that (Booking.com) is taking the payment. They are maintaining the relationship with the customer. They have the customer's email address, the phone number and none of that is shared until….the traveler is “acquired”. And it seems inconsistent with being a third party that you are the entirety of the transaction.”
Sanjay Vakil, DirectBooker
Booking.com is still doing the bare minimum when it comes to customer communication
The DMA seems to make it clear that the DMA’s gatekeepers shouldn’t restrict communication between business users and end users. But Booking.com has maintained that its current process is doing enough.
In Booking.com’s own words in the workshop: “The language of article 4.3 refers to allowing business users to communicate and promote offers, not enabling that.”
By this logic, because Booking.com doesn’t expressly prohibit communication outside the platform, it’s already compliant with this element of the DMA. Hoteliers don't agree -- and we feel this approach is inherently antithetical to the DMA's goals of fairness and transparency.
Booking.com should be providing email addresses to hoteliers
Stakeholders in the workshop felt that email addresses are key contact details that allow hotels to communicate with their guests – not just for marketing purposes, but for important logistical reasons. By only providing phone numbers, Booking.com is limiting a hotel’s capability to serve their guests.
“This is not about marketing. This is about contract fulfilling and we…are of the opinion that these contact details belong to the hotel. This is our customer, and Booking are just an intermediary.”
Markus Luthe, German Hotel Association
Booking.com’s definition of “acquired” is questionable
Stakeholders noted that Booking.com defines an acquired customer as someone who has checked in – but hotels feel that they have a responsibility to travellers once they have purchased the room, and therefore that the definition offered by Booking is not adequate.
Booking.com’s overall approach – and what comes next?
Booking.com’s approach to the workshop, and the replies given to questions from the room, seem to be in line with the tone of its initial report: it will aim to comply with the DMA enough to squeeze by and continue operating in the EU, but is hoping to avoid making any significant changes to the way its platform operates.
In the European Commission’s opening statement at the workshop, Director Rita Wezenbeek reinforced the committee’s aims to “achieve compliance with the spirit of the DMA, not only the letter”. If that statement is true, then Booking.com may have some work ahead of them.
We’re not sure what next steps will be for the European Commission and Booking.com, but we know that they’re likely to have a significant impact on the EU's hospitality landscape. If you'd like more clarity on what may lie ahead, and the effect it could have on your hotel's business, our direct booking experts are always happy to help.
Get in touch with our direct booking experts
Genevieve is a product marketing manager at Triptease.
