'Only one room left': Why Booking.com faces massive lawsuits

Several lawsuits and legal actions have been filed against Booking.com, the Netherlands-based digital travel booking behemoth.

Booking.com is widely known as a global online travel agency specialising in hotel and accommodation reservations. 

The lawsuits primarily focus on allegations of anti-competitive practices, deceptive pricing, and involvement in illegal activities. 

'Parity clauses' on target: A group of European hoteliers, under the Stichting Hotel Claims Alliance, has mounted a legal challenge against Booking.com’s use of “parity clauses” from 2004 to 2024.

What this clause does: This practice prevented hotels from offering lower prices or better conditions on their own websites or competing platforms. 

The lawsuits highlight Booking.com’s alleged exploitation of its market dominance, which may inflate prices for consumers and restrict hotels’ pricing autonomy. 

Booking.com consistently denies wrongdoing, emphasising its commitment to transparency and competitive pricing.

Below is a summary of key details based on published information:

The Dutch Consumers’ Association (Consumentenbond) and the Consumer Competition Claims Foundation (CCC) initiated a mass claim against Booking.com, accusing the company of artificially inflating hotel prices since January 2013. 

The lawsuit alleges that Booking.com violated competition rules and consumer laws by using practices such as fake discounts, incomplete price disclosures, and fabricated scarcity tactics (e.g., “only one room left”).

These “dark patterns” are said to manipulate consumer choices, prohibited under Dutch and EU regulations.

Impact: The lawsuit claims damages amounting to hundreds of millions of euros, with individual payouts potentially ranging from tens to hundreds of euros depending on booking frequency and expenditure.

Over 130,000 consumers signed up within a week of the claim’s announcement, causing the registration website to temporarily crash due to high demand.

Process: The action operates on a “no cure, no pay” basis, meaning participants pay nothing upfront but may owe up to 25% of any compensation to cover legal costs if the case succeeds. Consumers who booked through Booking.com or similar platforms since 2013, or even directly with hotels affected by Booking.com’s practices, may be eligible. The organisations aim to settle with Booking.com but are prepared to go to court, if necessary.

Booking.com’s Response: The company denies the allegations, asserting it has always aimed to provide the best prices and a transparent booking experience. It claims the accusations of artificially raising prices are unfounded.

Over 10,000 hotels across Europe, supported by HOTREC (the European hospitality sector’s umbrella association) and over 25 national hotel associations, filed a class action against Booking.com. 

The lawsuit, coordinated by the Stichting Hotel Claims Alliance, targets Booking.com’s use of “parity clauses” from 2004 to 2024.

The platform's "best price" clauses, the group claimed, prevented hotels from offering lower rates elsewhere, or better conditions on their own websites or competing platforms, and resulted in inflated commissions and stifled competition. 

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on September 19, 2024, that these clauses violated EU competition law by restricting price competition and inflating commission rates.

Impact: Hotels may recover up to 30% or more of commissions paid to Booking.com, plus interest. The case is being heard in a Dutch court, as Booking.com is headquartered in Amsterdam. Participation is free for hotels, with no cost risks.

Background: The German Federal Cartel Office and the ECJ confirmed the illegality of both “wide” and “narrow” parity clauses, which limited hotels’ ability to compete on price and undermined direct sales channels.

Spain’s anti-trust watchdog (CNMC) fined Booking.com €413.2 million ($448 million) in July 2024 for abusing its 70%–90% market share in Spain. The fine followed complaints from the Spanish Association of Hotel Managers and the Madrid Hotel Business Association, alleging unfair conditions, such as banning hotels from offering lower prices on their own sites and imposing discounts without consent.

Booking.com’s Response: The company plans to appeal, arguing the issue should be addressed under the EU’s Digital Markets Act.

The Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Booking Holdings Inc., Booking.com’s parent company, in August 2023, alleging deceptive trade practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The suit claims Booking.com advertised artificially low room rates by omitting mandatory fees, misleading consumers and hindering comparison shopping.

These fees were often obscured within “Taxes and Fees” at checkout, giving Booking.com a competitive edge over transparent competitors.

Example: A San Antonio hotel room listed at $409 surged to over $546 at checkout due to a $56 hotel fee and $81 in taxes.

Status: The case, filed in Bexar County District Court, is ongoing.

The German hotel Wikingerhof sued Booking.com, alleging the company abused its dominant market position by imposing unfair terms after changing its contract in 2015.

The ECJ ruled in 2024 that German courts could hear the case, despite Booking.com’s claim that disputes should be settled in Dutch courts per their contract. The case focuses on anti-competitive practices and is ongoing in Germany.

SOMO and a consortium of civil society organizations, including the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and Al-Haq, filed a criminal complaint against Booking.com in November 2023 with the Rotterdam Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The complaint accuses the company of laundering profits from illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).

New evidence submitted in December 2024 showed an increase in settlement listings, particularly in East Jerusalem, from 13 to 39 between November 2023 and November 2024.

Allegations: The groups argue that Booking.com’s listings in illegal settlements support settler-colonialism, violate international humanitarian law (e.g., the Fourth Geneva Convention), and contribute to Palestinian displacement. The complaint alleges money laundering, as profiting from war crimes is illegal under Dutch law.

Booking.com’s Response: The company denies illegal activity, claiming no laws prohibit listings in Israeli settlements and disagreeing with accusations of money laundering. It has been blacklisted by the UN Human Rights Council since 2020 for these activities.

Status: The Dutch authorities have not yet responded substantively, and the case remains active.

In 2019, UK regulators launched a drive against misleading tactics by online booking platforms. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) cracked down on Booking.com and other booking sites for misleading tactics, such as false scarcity claims and hidden fees.

A 2019 investigation by Which? found Booking.com still used inaccurate “one room left” claims, breaching CMA regulations.

Trademark Dispute: In 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favour of Booking.com, allowing it to trademark its name, rejecting the US Patent and Trademark Office’s claim that “Booking.com” was too generic.

The scale of the European hotels’ lawsuit and the Dutch consumer claim is significant. The lawsuits highlight Booking.com’s alleged exploitation of its market dominance, which may inflate prices for consumers and restrict hotels’ pricing autonomy. 

The hotels have argued that the so-called "best price" clauses, which were finally abolished in 2024 due to the EU's Digital Markets Act, led to higher commissions and restricted their ability to compete independently. 

Booking.com consistently denies wrongdoing, emphasising its commitment to transparency and competitive pricing.

The scale of the European hotels’ lawsuit and the Dutch consumer claim suggests significant financial and reputational risks for Booking.com, with potential payouts in the hundreds of millions.