Booking.com's price curbs on hotels may hinder competition, EU top court says
Adds Booking Holdings comment in paragraphs 11-12
By Foo Yun Chee
BRUSSELS, Sept 19 (Reuters) -Booking.com's restrictions against hotels offering lower rates on their websites or on rival sites are unnecessary and could reduce competition, Europe's top court said on Thursday in a ruling targeting a widely used industry practice.
The court also said, however, they were not anti-competitive under European Union (EU) law.
Known as parity clauses and inserted into contracts between online booking sites and hotels, the practice has triggered complaints by competitors and scrutiny from regulators across Europe concerned about fewer choices for consumers.
Germany's antitrust watchdog has banned such clauses whether they apply to hotels' websites or rival accommodation sites while regulators for the EU as a whole allow such curbs only for hotels' own sites.
Landmark rules known as the Digital Markets Act that came into force last year ban large online platforms, which would include Booking.com, from using wide or narrow retail parity clauses or equivalent commercial measures.
The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said there was no evidence to justify them.
"It has not been established that price parity clauses, whether wide or narrow, first, are objectively necessary for the implementation of that main operation and, second, are proportionate to the objective pursued by it," judges said.
They said the restrictions may reduce competition between various hotel reservation platforms, force out small platforms and new entrants and do not appear to be necessary to ensure Booking.com's economic viability.
However the court also said that the clauses cannot be considered anti-competitive under EU antitrust laws.
"Price parity clauses cannot, in principle, be classified as 'ancillary restraints' for the purposes of EU competition law," the CJEU said.
Booking Holdings expressed disappointment with the ruling.
"We maintain that parity clauses that historically existed in Germany were necessary and proportionate to the relationship between accommodation partners and Booking.com and that Booking.com operates in a competitive market," the company said.
The case involving the unit of New York-listed Booking Holdings BKNG.O came after the company applied for a declaration on whether parity clauses are valid, prompting a Dutch court to seek guidance from the CJEU.
The case is C-264/23 Booking.com and Booking.com (Deutschland).
Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; editing by Barbara Lewis and Jane Merriman
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
