Spain's antitrust watchdog fines Booking.com nearly $450M for unfair terms and restricting rivals

Image Credits: Web Summit (opens in a new window) / Flickr (opens in a new window) under a CC BY 2.0 (opens in a new window) license.

Spain’s competition authority, the CNMC, has found that online travel agency Booking.com abused a dominant market position over the past five years. It fined the company €413.24 million (or around $447 million at current exchange rates) on Tuesday.

The CNMC opened an investigation of Booking.com back in October 2022, following complaints by the Spanish Association of Hotel Managers and the Regional Hotel Association of Madrid. The watchdog’s probe confirmed that Booking imposed unfair terms and conditions on hotels that the authority said made it difficult for rival travel agencies to compete.

Booking.com held a share of between 70% and 90% of the market in Spain for provision of online booking intermediation services to hotels by online travel agencies over the period in question.

“The company has committed two abuses of its dominant position since at least January 1, 2019 until today by imposing various unfair commercial conditions on hotels located in Spain that use its booking intermediation services and restricting competition from other online travel agencies… that offer the same services,” the CNMC wrote in a press release [in Spanish; this is a machine translation].

The authority concluded that Booking imposed an unfair price clause on hotels using its platform that prevented them from offering their rooms on their own websites for less than the price offered on Booking.com, even as the platform reserved the right to unilaterally reduce the price hotels offer through its website or application. 

The CNMC also found fault with issues related to clauses pertaining to the company’s general terms, stating that only an English version of the terms had legal value whereas both the law applicable to the terms, and the competent courts, are of the Netherlands, where Booking is headquartered. This made it more expensive than it should be for Spanish entities to take Booking to court in the event of a dispute.

Additionally, the investigation findings call out a lack of transparency around the value Booking provided hotels via a series of subscription products that allow hotels to improve their position in the platform’s default rankings in exchange for paying higher commission fees or offering some of their rooms at discounted rates.

The CNMC said Booking was able to abuse its dominant position by restricting competition from other online travel agencies by using the total number of reservations for a hotel through its platform as a ranking criterion in the default search results lists, thereby encouraging hotels to concentrate their online bookings on Booking.com.

The authority’s findings also highlight the use of a performance requirement by Booking that it used as a criterion for hotels accessing and remaining in two of the aforementioned subscription programs — but which it found to be based “primarily on the profitability of each hotel for Booking.com.”

“This encourages hotels that want to access or remain in the programs to follow a pricing and availability policy that leads them to concentrate their sales on the platform, to the detriment of other competing agencies,” the CNMC added.  

The sanction imposed by the Spanish authority breaks down into two penalties of €206.62M apiece for each of the abuses of a dominant position. The first is the unfair T&Cs imposed on hotels in Spain, and the second being the restriction of competition from other online travel agencies.

The authority has also imposed behavioral obligations on Booking, which require it to stop the infringing conduct and ensure it does not engage in any other similar conduct that could product an equivalent effect in the future.

Booking.com has been contacted for a response to the CNMC’s sanction. The company may appeal the sanction before the National Court but must do so within two months.

Update: Company spokesperson, Allison Voight, emailed this statement in which Booking writes: “We strongly disagree with the outcome of the CNMC investigation and intend to appeal this unprecedented decision. We have said before that the EU’s Digital Market Act is the right forum to discuss and assess the majority of these issues, presenting an opportunity to agree on solutions that apply across Europe rather than country by country. 

“Booking.com operates in a highly competitive sector, and in an industry characterized by a high degree of choice for businesses and consumers alike.  We offer accommodation partners support programs such as our Preferred Plus and Genius that they can opt into. The decision today by the CNMC does not take this into account, adding to a lack of consistency for consumers and accommodation partners in Spain, against a global backdrop.”

Beyond Spain, the European travel giant is facing tighter regulation across the EU in the coming months, following its designation as a gatekeeper under the bloc’s Digital Markets Act back in May. It will be expected to be compliant with that regime by mid November with the risk of penalties for non-compliance that can reach up to 10% of global annual turnover (or 20% for repeat offenses).

Spain's antitrust watchdog fines Booking.com nearly $450M for unfair terms and restricting rivals

Image Credits: Web Summit (opens in a new window) / Flickr (opens in a new window) under a CC BY 2.0 (opens in a new window) license.

Spain’s competition authority, the CNMC, has found that online travel agency Booking.com abused a dominant market position over the past five years. It fined the company €413.24 million (or around $447 million at current exchange rates) on Tuesday.

The CNMC opened an investigation of Booking.com back in October 2022, following complaints by the Spanish Association of Hotel Managers and the Regional Hotel Association of Madrid. The watchdog’s probe confirmed that Booking imposed unfair terms and conditions on hotels that the authority said made it difficult for rival travel agencies to compete.

Booking.com held a share of between 70% and 90% of the market in Spain for provision of online booking intermediation services to hotels by online travel agencies over the period in question.

“The company has committed two abuses of its dominant position since at least January 1, 2019 until today by imposing various unfair commercial conditions on hotels located in Spain that use its booking intermediation services and restricting competition from other online travel agencies… that offer the same services,” the CNMC wrote in a press release [in Spanish; this is a machine translation].

The authority concluded that Booking imposed an unfair price clause on hotels using its platform that prevented them from offering their rooms on their own websites for less than the price offered on Booking.com, even as the platform reserved the right to unilaterally reduce the price hotels offer through its website or application. 

The CNMC also found fault with issues related to clauses pertaining to the company’s general terms, stating that only an English version of the terms had legal value whereas both the law applicable to the terms, and the competent courts, are of the Netherlands, where Booking is headquartered. This made it more expensive than it should be for Spanish entities to take Booking to court in the event of a dispute.

Additionally, the investigation findings call out a lack of transparency around the value Booking provided hotels via a series of subscription products that allow hotels to improve their position in the platform’s default rankings in exchange for paying higher commission fees or offering some of their rooms at discounted rates.

The CNMC said Booking was able to abuse its dominant position by restricting competition from other online travel agencies by using the total number of reservations for a hotel through its platform as a ranking criterion in the default search results lists, thereby encouraging hotels to concentrate their online bookings on Booking.com.

The authority’s findings also highlight the use of a performance requirement by Booking that it used as a criterion for hotels accessing and remaining in two of the aforementioned subscription programs — but which it found to be based “primarily on the profitability of each hotel for Booking.com.”

“This encourages hotels that want to access or remain in the programs to follow a pricing and availability policy that leads them to concentrate their sales on the platform, to the detriment of other competing agencies,” the CNMC added.  

The sanction imposed by the Spanish authority breaks down into two penalties of €206.62M apiece for each of the abuses of a dominant position. The first is the unfair T&Cs imposed on hotels in Spain, and the second being the restriction of competition from other online travel agencies.

The authority has also imposed behavioral obligations on Booking, which require it to stop the infringing conduct and ensure it does not engage in any other similar conduct that could product an equivalent effect in the future.

Booking.com has been contacted for a response to the CNMC’s sanction. The company may appeal the sanction before the National Court but must do so within two months.

Beyond Spain, the European travel giant is facing tighter regulation across the EU in the coming months, following its designation as a gatekeeper under the bloc’s Digital Markets Act back in May. It will be expected to be compliant with that regime by mid November with the risk of penalties for non-compliance that can reach up to 10% of global annual turnover (or 20% for repeat offenses).

Empty school desk on a blue background. Conceptual.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fines BloomTech for false claims

Empty school desk on a blue background. Conceptual.

Image Credits: A. Martin UW Photography (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said in an order on Tuesday that BloomTech, the for-profit coding bootcamp previously known as the Lambda School, deceived students about the cost of loans, made false claims about graduates’ hiring rates and engaged in illegal lending masked as “income sharing” agreements with high fees.

The order marks the end of the CFPB’s investigation into BloomTech’s practices and the start of the agency’s penalties on the organization.

The CFPB is permanently banning BloomTech from consumer lending activities and its CEO, Austen Allred, from student lending for a period of 10 years. In addition, the agency is ordering BloomTech and Allred to cease collecting payments on loans for graduates who didn’t have a qualifying job and allow students to withdraw their funds without penalty, as well as eliminate finance changes for “certain agreements.”

“BloomTech and its CEO sought to drive students toward income share loans that were marketed as risk-free, but in fact carried significant finance charges and many of the same risks as other credit products,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement. “Today’s action underscores our increased focus on investigating individual executives and, when appropriate, charging them with breaking the law.”

BloomTech and Allred must also pay the CFPB over $164,000 in civil penalties to be deposited in the agency’s victims relief fund, with BloomTech contributing around $64,000 and Allred forking over the remaining $100,000.

Allred founded BloomTech, which rebranded from the Lambda School in 2022 after cutting half its staff, in 2017. Based in San Francisco, the vocational organization is owned primarily by Allred but is backed by various VC funds and investors including Gigafund, Tandem Fund, Y Combinator, GV, GGV and Stripe. At one time it was valued at over $150 million.

Critics almost immediately attacked the firm’s then-pioneering business model — the income share agreement, or ISA — as predatory.

BloomTech originated “at least” 11,000 income-share loans to fund students’ tuition for the short-term, typically six-to-nine-month certification programs in fields spanning web development, data science and back-end engineering, according to the CFPB. These loans required that recipients who earned more than $50,000 in a related industry pay BloomTech 17% of their pre-tax income each month until reaching the 24-payment or $30,000 total repayment threshold.

BloomTech didn’t market the loans as loans, really, saying that they didn’t create debt and were “risk free” — and advertised a 71% to 86% job placement rate. But the CFPB found these marketing claims and others to be patently false.

BloomTech’s loans in fact carried an annual percentage rate and an average finance charge of around $4,000, neither of which students were made aware of, and a single missed payment triggered a default. The school’s job placement rates were closer to 50% and sank as low as 30%. And, unbeknown to many students, BloomTech was selling a portion of its loans to investors while depriving recipients of rights they should’ve had under a federal protection known as the Holder Rule.

Prior to the CFPB order, BloomTech, which briefly landed in hot water with California’s oversight board several years ago for operating without approval, had faced other lawsuits claiming the school misrepresented how likely graduates were to get a job and how much they were likely to earn. Last year, leaked documents obtained by Business Insider raised questions about the company inflating its efficacy and hyping up a curriculum that didn’t upskill students at the level they expected.

To comply with the CFPB order, BloomTech must eliminate the finance charge for those who graduated the program more than 18 months ago and obtained a qualifying job making $70,000 or less. The company must also allow current students to withdraw from the program and cancel their loans, or continue in the program with a third-party loan.