[yvely]

Regulating predatory practices is not the same as destroying a company. And if it happens to be the same, then that's probably a good thing. I have my problems with many things EU, but that hotels are allowed to provide cheaper prices themselves is just good for both the hotel and the guest.

[carlosjobim]

There is nothing predatory that I know of booking.com's practices. I know that hackers have a categorical hostility towards any large company (but not towards large governments or large banks of course), but could you explain what Booking.com does wrong?

Are they supposed to provide a central search engine with availability and reviews and a large customer base for free to any hotel owner? And when any guest makes a booking, the hotel owner sends them a message "Hey, cancel your reservation on booking and book with me instead and I'll give you a little discount." I guess hackers think that is marvellous, but how is that fair to booking? It is the hotels that ask to be on booking, they are free to do without and many do with great success.

Awaiting the responses saying "The government should provide an online booking platform and ban all others".

[rurban]

Ask any hotel manager if he likes booking.com or if he prefers independent or direct booking. It's a racket

[carlosjobim]

I used to be a hotel manager. Now I work in almost direct competition to booking. Booking is not a racket, you are free to not use them if you don't like them and you are free to take rooms away from booking if you want to limit how much they can sell. The hotel has compete control of how they use booking.

Your job as a hotel manager is to do what you can to increase direct reservations and reduce booking.com's share of your total reservations. But the reality is that most are too lazy or incompetent to make guests comfortable to book directly instead of through booking. Some hotels are even so donkey brained that they offer better rates on booking than on their own website. Then cry to regulators?

[personomas]

No, the Regulation (in this case) is the predatory practice, which is destroying companies. There's a reason the EU doesn't have many successful companies.

DMA is the problem, it's not "that hotels are allowed to provide cheaper prices themselves". DMA does not regulate (or provide) that "hotels are allowed to provide cheaper prices themselves" because hotels were always allowed to do this.

Even I admit that DMA has a couple good things, but it is overwhelmed by the bad. DMA goes way, way too far and it causes destruction.

EU policies are extremely overbearing, arrogant and totalitarian. This is destroying business.

[jeltz]

So what are the concrete problems with the DMA? I do not know it well enough but as a EU citizen and small business owner I am generally very happy with other EU regulations.

[belorn]

From the keypoints of the DMA, this change should require that:

Booking.com can not prevent hotels from providing booking through other sites.

booking.com can not prevent hotels from advertising special deals without giving booking.com a cut.

booking.com must give hotels tools to independent verify advertisements that hotels are paying for.

Booking.com must give hotels access to booking data in real time, and must provide export options for such data.

Booking.com can not give booking.com owned hotels preference over other hotels. (not sure if there are such hotels).

Booking.com can not compete with hotels using the hotels own booking data.

[carlosjobim]

Number 1: Booking.com has never prevented hotels from providing booking through other sites.

Number 2: Booking.com has always demanded that any room sold by them cannot be cheaper anywhere else. Every third party seller demands this. Hint: You don't have to sell all of your rooms through booking.

This rule could destroy booking.com depending on how it is enforced, since hotels could then just use them as a free advertising platform.

Number 3: Seems fair.

Number 4: They've always done this.

Number 5: They don't own any hotels AFAIK

Number 6: What do they mean?

All in all, it seems the regulators do not understand at all what they are regulating. After decades of online reservations being the norm, hotels should only blame themselves if they've become dependent on third parties such as booking.

[dzhiurgis]

How would you regulate them if at all?

[carlosjobim]

The purpose of regulation should be to combat harmful business practices and not to try to destroy a company that grows too big for the tastes of EU politicians. Does Booking.com use their size to harm competitors in any harmful way? Not that I know. Do they abuse their customers or accommodation partners? Not that I know. Regulators should show some evidence before making hostile moves, it seems they are just acting on ideology and not in the interests of the customer. But EU rulers and their worshippers among the population do live in a kind of fantasy land of 300 page PDFs, while ignoring very tangible problems.

Booking.com should of course have to make good on any promises or deals they make with guests and with hotels, which they seem to do.

If there's one thing that regulators should take a look at, it is the practice of selling non-refundable hotel nights. Booking.com does it together with hotels who able such offers and the whole industry does it at a limited scale, and have always done it. But the way I see it, there is no reason that a hotel shouldn't be able to always refund any room if it is cancelled at least one month before the stay. You should always be able to find another occupant for the room within one month. The only reason hotels sell non-refundable rooms is with the hope of double dipping when somebody has mistakenly reserved it without paying notice that it was non-refundable. I can see no argument against mandating a one month free cancellation for all hotel bookings on land.

[moi2388]

All of that sounds very fair.

[personomas]

I'm not going to get into the specifics of DMA on this one case. DMA is like a labyrinth of legal disaster, I'm not even going to get started lost in it right now.

[gruez]

In other words, "just trust me bro"?

[personomas]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Just because I clarify my position doesn't meant that I'm asking you to believe me or trust it.

[com]

This all sounds very good for open markets and capitalism. As a consumer I should benefit, and well-run hotels too, I suppose, if I were ever to stay in one.

[varispeed]

These regulations should have been done decades ago. Now these lead to corporations growing abnormally big with immense power to corrupt policymakers and help them create regulatory capture.

It's great that EU sees some sense and does not give in to the temptation of easy money from big corporations.

[deeth_starr_v]

I’m not sure you’ll get a good answer. They’ve been on HN for 9 years and have -3 karma lol

[personomas]

Just because my opinions aren't popular, doesn't mean I'm not capable of giving good answers. Or you're the bandwagon guy who just likes who's most popular then??

[rightbyte]

> This is destroying business.

Middle men like Hotels.com etc are destroying business by adding a hidden extra booking fee from the consumers.

[gruez]

Would you rather be forced to scour a dozen hotel sites individually to find a place to stay? Arguably "Middle men like Hotels.com etc" are providing a valuable service by allowing consumers to comparison shop in one place. Unless you think such sites should be government funded, it's only fair that they charge a fee for their service.

[allarm]

> Would you rather be forced to scour a dozen hotel sites individually to find a place to stay?

Yes.

[personomas]

And you're still welcome to, and that's the thing. The existence of Booking.com doesn't prevent that.

[allarm]

I mean, yes? I don't mind booking.com as long as I have a sane alternative.

[personomas]

No DMA will and does destroy business.

[jeltz]

But does it destroy any non-predatory businesses? If other people here are correct it should be trivial for Booking to comply since they are already almost compliant.

[personomas]

Yes. And it causes gazillions in legal costs for everyone.

[rightbyte]

I am fine with that.

[sofixa]

> There's a reason the EU doesn't have many successful companies

I'm sorry, what? What could possibly make you think that?

[Two4]

Yes, I'm going to have to see some evidence for a claim as wild as that.