[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.

[sofixa]

> 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.

That's exactly where the designation as a "gatekeep" comes in. For it to happen there's an investigation by the commission, and there are static thresholds but also sense applied. Just because you don't know how booking.com have abused their position doesn't mean they haven't - as concrete examples, they've been caught applying dark patterns with lies (only X rooms remaining and Y people are looking at them!!!), and them precluding hotels from offering cheaper rates is also a problem for consumers.

[carlosjobim]

What are you talking about? Using sales tactics is not the same as abusing your market position or unfair competition. As for the "Only X rooms remaining", those numbers are not lies. I could easily confirm that by comparing with my backend system when working as a hotel manager. Just because you (or the EU) don't like those texts, doesn't mean they are lies. Some people might even find them useful.

> precluding hotels from offering cheaper rates is also a problem for consumers.

Then you don't understand the industry. It is impossible for booking or any third party sellers to exist if they can not offer the same rates to customers for the same rooms. People would just use booking.com to find availability and reviews, and then book with the hotel more cheaply. Then you have to ban all third party selling of hotels or actually anything at all. Hotels have always been free to not use booking.com and to not offer all rooms on booking.com

I find it very Soviet to state that a crime has been committed without mentioning what it is, and it's impressive that people here swallow it wholesale.

People use middle men such as booking for increased confidence in their travel reservations. Trust is something very important when dealing with distance sales, which is the entire travel industry. Consumers will not benefit by taking away those platforms.

[sofixa]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49740143

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47141538

Enjoy. Booking have been caught lying to pressure consumers.

> Then you don't understand the industry. It is impossible for booking or any third party sellers to exist if they can not offer the same rates to customers for the same rooms. People would just use booking.com to find availability and reviews, and then book with the hotel more cheaply

Some people might, and many already do (a lot of hotels work around it by offering discounts if you sign up on their website, which is effectively a discount for booking directly). But a big part of the allure of Booking and similar middlemen is the independent reviews, their guarantees, support, loyalty program and payment options. You even say it yourself , people use Booking because they trust them, so even if the price is a little higher people will still use them instead of booking with unknown hotels directly. Enforcing pricing is anti-competitive and anti-consumer. And the EU isn't trying to kill corporations, merely restrict their abuses and ensure a level playing field.

> find it very Soviet to state that a crime has been committed without mentioning what it is, and it's impressive that people here swallow it wholesale

I find it very American to not know what Soviet means or implies. For your information, regardless if you're American or not, in Soviet times, you'd get charged with an explicit crime. It'd just be a fake one with made up proof, but you know what's the supposed thing you did.

And Booking aren't charged with a crime. They're being designated as a gatekeeper, and will have extra responsibilities to ensure consumer protections. If they fail to comply, they'll be fined for explicit infractions.

It's also very American to try to preserve the rights of big corporations to fuck consumers. There are freedoms from and freedoms to. The latter need to be restricted on big corporations to prevent abuse, which would reinforce the former for regular people.

[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.

[pjc50]

You haven't even clarified!

[personomas]

I'm announcing my position. Call it what you want.

Just because I make an argument on HN, doesn't mean I need to back it up with books of explanation.

[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.