If the Lanham act applies, possibly[1]. This isn't typical false advertising, though, as it's not claiming their service does a thing it doesn't nor is it defaming a competitor, it's lying about interest in the service.
Looking at the criteria:
> (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;
I think a fake number of people looking is a false statement of fact about commercial activity.
> (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;
Seems like a false number would deceive anyone who saw it.
> (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;
And it would induce them to purchase when they might otherwise hold off the decision.
> (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and
It's the web, so naturally.
> (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff.
This is where it gets dicey and you'd need to ask a lawyer, or someone familiar with case law. The source I'm citing goes on to say:
> The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading.
I think if you could show, "I would have shopped for another price if I didn't think this was almost sold out," then you might have a case.
But... I suspect your damages would be the difference in prices between booking.com and some competitor, which are likely to be fairly small. The source has a whole section on remedies that might apply.
I think you misunderstand- the parent comment you replied to is referring to ads on Google using a much, much lower price that isn't actually offered by the hotel; it's not referring to whether or not the number of people looking at the ad is misleading/false.
Looking at the criteria:
> (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;
I think a fake number of people looking is a false statement of fact about commercial activity.
> (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;
Seems like a false number would deceive anyone who saw it.
> (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;
And it would induce them to purchase when they might otherwise hold off the decision.
> (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and
It's the web, so naturally.
> (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff.
This is where it gets dicey and you'd need to ask a lawyer, or someone familiar with case law. The source I'm citing goes on to say:
> The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading.
I think if you could show, "I would have shopped for another price if I didn't think this was almost sold out," then you might have a case.
But... I suspect your damages would be the difference in prices between booking.com and some competitor, which are likely to be fairly small. The source has a whole section on remedies that might apply.
[1]: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+Adverti...