Booking.com and the Price Parity Claims

On 30 January, a Dutch foundation called the Stichting Hotel Claims Alliance launched collective proceedings against Booking.com in the Amsterdam District Court on behalf of 3,087 hotels. By the end of July another 7,696 hotels had joined, taking the total to 10,783, and registration closed on 11 September. A third and final expansion is planned for the autumn, which the foundation expects to take the total to around 18,000 hotels, with claims expected to be worth billions of euros.

The claims centre on price parity clauses. These were terms in Booking.com's contracts that required hotels to offer their best rates on Booking.com and not undercut them on their own websites or rival platforms. The hotels argue that the clauses, used between 2004 and 2024, restricted competition, helped Booking.com build its dominant position and led to inflated commission rates. The claim is backed by the European hotel association Hotrec and more than 30 national associations, including UKHospitality, and it is being heard in Amsterdam because Booking.com's terms choose the Dutch courts for disputes with hotels.

The claims follow a ruling of the European Court of Justice in September 2024 in Booking.com v 25hours Hotel Company Berlin. The court held that Booking.com's parity clauses could not be treated as ancillary restraints, meaning they were not objectively necessary for the platform to operate, so they could fall within EU competition law. Booking.com dropped the clauses in 2024 to comply with the EU's Digital Markets Act, under which it had been designated a gatekeeper. It disputes that the ruling supports compensation claims.

The UK is following a different route. In June, Chris Warner, a consumer lawyer who spent eight years as a legal director at the CMA, announced a proposed opt-out collective claim in the Competition Appeal Tribunal on behalf of millions of UK consumers, estimating damages at over £2 billion. It is backed by litigation funder Balance Legal Capital, with Mishcon de Reya, counsel from Blackstone Chambers and economists from BRG. The two claims work in different ways. In the Dutch case, each hotel signs an agreement assigning its claim to the foundation, so only those who sign up are included. In the UK, an opt-out claim covers everyone in the class automatically unless they choose to leave.

A single ruling on a contract term has opened the door to damages claims in more than one country. Of the two, the UK claim carries the greater exposure, because an opt-out claim covers every consumer in the class unless they choose to leave.