S'pore competition watchdog raises concerns over problematic features on Agoda website, app
SINGAPORE - Several design changes were made to travel platform Agoda's website and mobile application after the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) raised concerns over some problematic features.
The issues are related to Agoda's accommodation search and booking features, which CCCS was concerned would mislead customers.
'Best Match' search results
CCCS found that Agoda's 'Best Match' search results were presented in a way which suggested that the rankings were most compatible based solely on the search criteria, such as travel dates and guest ratings.
CCCS found that Agoda's 'Best Match' search results were presented in a way which suggested that the rankings were most compatible based solely on the search criteria.
PHOTO: CCCS
But Agoda's search results also factor in the money the platform would earn.
Agoda has since replaced the 'Best Match' label with 'Our Picks' to better reflect that the results are the platform's recommendations.
Agoda has since replaced the 'Best Match' label with 'Our Picks'.
PHOTO: CCCS
'Agoda Preferred' badge
This badge appeared on selected properties accompanied by an explainer which said: 'Agoda Preferred recommends trusted and verified properties that have a longstanding relationship with Agoda and meet certain criteria.'
The 'Agoda Preferred' badge appears on selected properties.
PHOTO: CCCS
CCCS said it was concerned that this blurb did not adequately explain the criteria for properties to receive the badge, which include paying Agoda more.
Agoda has since revised the explainer to disclose more clearly that these properties pay additional commission to the platform, the watchdog added.
Agoda has since revised the explainer.
PHOTO: CCCS
Default 'ranking' of search results
The way accommodation search results are ranked could potentially mislead consumers into believing that the listings were ordered based solely on their search parameters.
Agoda has revised the explainer to clarify that the specific placements of these accommodations are influenced by other factors, including paying fees to Agoda.
PHOTO: CCCS
But accommodation providers could actually boost their visibility by paying Agoda as part of a 'preferred partner programme' or by sponsoring their own listings.
In response to CCCS' concerns, Agoda has revised the explainer to clarify that the specific placements of these accommodations are influenced by other factors, including paying fees to Agoda.
'Cheapest x-star stay' label
Accommodations presented with this label were not always the lowest-priced options when the search results are sorted by price for the same star rating, CCCS said.
To avoid confusing customers, Agoda has removed the label altogether.
PHOTO: CCCS
It added that it was concerned that this label may have suggested to consumers that the labelled accommodation is the cheapest option available when it may not actually be.
To avoid confusing customers, Agoda has removed the label altogether.
Time limit to complete booking
Agoda website customers were shown a five-minute countdown timer as they input the details needed to complete their bookings.
This time limit could be extended by up to 20 minutes by clicking the 'I need more time' button.
CCCS said it was worried that this would create a false sense of urgency for consumers to quickly complete the booking.
Agoda has since standardised the website's countdown timer to align with that of its mobile application, which is 20 minutes.
This provides more time for consumers to complete the booking process, or shop around for better options.
Agoda has since standardised the website's countdown timer to align with that of its mobile application, which is 20 minutes.
PHOTO: CCCS
Using interface features that may mislead or even deceive consumers can be considered unfair trade practices under Singapore's fair trading laws, CCCS said, adding that this could lead to enforcement action by the commission.
Instead, businesses should design their user interface to present options in a clear and neutral manner to consumers to make well-informed choices.
'Important and material information, particularly those relating to pricing, should be presented upfront and not be hidden in fine print,' CCCS warned. Statements regarding the practices and policies of a business should also be clear and easily understood.
CCCS chief executive Alvin Koh said the exchange with Agoda was part of a series of actions the watchdog will take to improve the online commerce space.
This is particularly so where consumers may face undue pressure to complete their transactions, and there are problematic website features, or even 'dark patterns' such as misleading messages, and manipulative user interfaces.
'In the coming months, CCCS will make it a point to educate consumers on identifying these misleading practices and how consumers can better protect themselves,' Mr Koh said.
Those who would like to report cases of unfair trade practices by errant businesses may contact the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) on 6277-5100 on weekdays from 9am to 5pm, or via the Case website.
Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
11-08-2025
- CNA
Court orders granted against immigration consultancy firms, their operator over misleading practices
SINGAPORE: The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has obtained court orders against two immigration consultancy firms and their operator for engaging in unfair trade practices. VED Immigrations and SAVA Immigrations, as well as a third firm, Paul Immigrations, were found to have misled consumers into believing that there was an urgent need to apply for Singapore permanent residency (PR), and that the firms could guarantee the success of applications made through them. In a media release on Monday (Aug 11), CCCS said that the "mastermind" behind the firms' trade practices was one Mr Cheng Yong Teck. Investigations into the firms began after the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received several complaints regarding Paul Immigrations' sales tactics. CASE continued to receive complaints against the firm even after it signed an agreement to stop the misleading practices. After CCCS found that Mr Cheng had ceased Paul Immigrations' operations but resumed similar practices through VED Immigrations, the focus of its investigations shifted to the latter firm. Then, investigations found that Mr Cheng was also operating through another business, SAVA Immigrations. All three immigration consultancy firms' websites included forms that allowed potential customers to check their chances of obtaining permanent residency. According to CCCS, instead of receiving results online after filling out the forms, these individuals would receive phone calls inviting them for "free consultations". "During these consultation sessions, sales staff would make unsubstantiated claims about rapidly changing PR rules and intense competition from other applicants, to try to persuade customers to apply as soon as possible," said Singapore's consumer watchdog. "The sales staff would then make baseless guarantees of PR application approval if customers engaged their services. "CCCS found no reasonable basis for the businesses to make such claims or guarantees, except to close the deals." Customers paid up to S$10,000 (US$7,790) for such services. Investigations revealed that Mr Cheng was responsible for directing the operations of these businesses and was deliberate in implementing the misleading trade practices. When Paul Immigrations was investigated, Mr Cheng continued to operate through the other businesses to evade detection. CCCS said: "Cheng personally wrote scripts on what staff members needed to do and say to prospective customers, monitored their sales tactics through closed-circuit television footage and implemented a punishment-and-reward system to ensure that his staff members followed his methods." A district court on Jul 22 ordered Mr Cheng, VED Immigrations and SAVA Immigrations to cease the unfair trade practices; publish details of the court orders on online platforms used for marketing their services and in major newspapers in Singapore; inform all potential customers about the court orders before entering into contracts with them; and notify CCCS about any changes to their business structures, as well as to Mr Cheng's employment status and his control or ownership of his businesses. CCCS said that this is its first court action against a person who used new business entities to conceal unfair trade practices. Its chief executive Alvin Koh said that consumers' insecurities and unfamiliarity with Singapore's immigration system were exploited by the three firms, misleading them into paying substantial sums of money. "The mastermind attempted to evade detection by closing the initial business while continuing the same practices through other businesses,' said Mr Koh.
Singapore Law Watch
01-08-2025
- Singapore Law Watch
Competition watchdog fines remittance service providers S$5.4 million for anti-competitive conduct
Competition watchdog fines remittance service providers S$5.4 million for anti-competitive conduct Source: Business Times Article Date: 01 Aug 2025 Author: Therese Soh The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) on Thursday (Jul 31) issued fines totalling around S$5.4 million to two remittance service providers for anti-competitive behaviour. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) on Thursday (Jul 31) issued fines totalling around S$5.4 million to two remittance service providers for anti-competitive behaviour. ZGR Global and Hanshan Money Express, which run shops near each other in People's Park Complex in Chinatown, illegally exchanged information about each other's outward remittance rates. These are the amounts of foreign currency remitted overseas for each unit of local currency paid for the remittance service. ZGR Global was fined around S$2.8 million, and Hanshan, around S$2.6 million. CCCS said: 'This information was commercially sensitive, as each party's decisions regarding remittance rates and the timing of (rate) updates were influenced by the other party's rates.' Both parties provide remittance services for Chinese yuan and are therefore direct competitors, it added. As remittance rates offered to customers are a key aspect on which remittance service providers compete, exchanging information about one another's rates undermines competition in the market, the competition watchdog said. 'These regular exchanges enabled the parties to directly receive information from their competitor, which influenced the setting of their CNY remittance rates,' it said. As a result of the information exchange, ZGR Global and Hanshan had similar outward CNY remittance rates, which limited the variety of rates available for customers, it added. Alvin Koh, chief executive of CCCS, noted that competition law requires businesses to act independently when determining their conduct in the market. He added: 'While businesses may observe and adapt to their competitors' behaviour, they must not communicate with competitors to influence their conduct in the market, or share their pricing strategies, for example, information on when they intend to change their quoted rates, and the extent of the changes. 'By colluding together to exchange such information, the parties undermined competition ... which reduced options for customers.' Before the parties began illegally exchanging rate information, they monitored one another's CNY remittance rates and at times had their employees pose as customers. Remittance rates are highly volatile and are updated frequently through the day, the CCCS noted. 'To overcome the uncertainty associated with each other's remittance rates in an unpredictable environment where rates change several times daily, the parties began exchanging information on their prevailing remittance rates, from at least January 2016,' it said. ZGR Global and Hanshan would disclose their opening rates to each other at the start of the day and whenever the rates were updated. These exchanges occurred daily and often several times during a day. Their staff exchanged this rate information over the phone and over the counter, by passing each other slips of paper with the information. While the CCCS formally engaged ZGR Global and Hanshan in July 2021, they stopped exchanging rate information only in February 2022, the competition watchdog said. It issued written notices to the parties in November 2024 and April 2025, and received responses from both, which it considered before deciding to issue the infringement decision. Factors such as each parties' turnover, the seriousness of their infringements as well as aggravating and mitigating factors were considered in deciding the financial penalties for each. Hanshan's S$2.6 million fine was discounted twice, once because it cooperated with the investigation, and a second time because it admitted to the infringement. CCCS warned: 'Businesses asked to participate in anti-competitive information exchanges should immediately decline participation, publicly distance themselves from such discussions, and report the matter to CCCS.' Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Business Times
31-07-2025
- Business Times
Competition watchdog fines remittance service providers S$5.4 million for anti-competitive conduct
[SINGAPORE] The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) on Thursday (Jul 31) issued fines totalling around S$5.4 million to two remittance service providers for anti-competitive behaviour. ZGR Global and Hanshan Money Express, which run shops near each other in People's Park Complex in Chinatown, illegally exchanged information about each other's outward remittance rates. These are the amounts of foreign currency remitted overseas for each unit of local currency paid for the remittance service. ZGR Global was fined around S$2.8 million, and Hanshan, around S$2.6 million. CCCS said: 'This information was commercially sensitive, as each party's decisions regarding remittance rates and the timing of (rate) updates were influenced by the other party's rates.' Both parties provide remittance services for Chinese yuan and are therefore direct competitors, it added. As remittance rates offered to customers are a key aspect on which remittance service providers compete, exchanging information about one another's rates undermines competition in the market, the competition watchdog said. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up 'These regular exchanges enabled the parties to directly receive information from their competitor, which influenced the setting of their CNY remittance rates,' it said. As a result of the information exchange, ZGR Global and Hanshan had similar outward CNY remittance rates, which limited the variety of rates available for customers, it added. Alvin Koh, chief executive of CCCS, noted that competition law requires businesses to act independently when determining their conduct in the market. He added: 'While businesses may observe and adapt to their competitors' behaviour, they must not communicate with competitors to influence their conduct in the market, or share their pricing strategies, for example, information on when they intend to change their quoted rates, and the extent of the changes. 'By colluding together to exchange such information, the parties undermined competition ... which reduced options for customers.' Before the parties began illegally exchanging rate information, they monitored one another's CNY remittance rates and at times had their employees pose as customers. Remittance rates are highly volatile and are updated frequently through the day, the CCCS noted. 'To overcome the uncertainty associated with each other's remittance rates in an unpredictable environment where rates change several times daily, the parties began exchanging information on their prevailing remittance rates, from at least January 2016,' it said. ZGR Global and Hanshan would disclose their opening rates to each other at the start of the day and whenever the rates were updated. These exchanges occurred daily and often several times during a day. Their staff exchanged this rate information over the phone and over the counter, by passing each other slips of paper with the information. While the CCCS formally engaged ZGR Global and Hanshan in July 2021, they stopped exchanging rate information only in February 2022, the competition watchdog said. It issued written notices to the parties in November 2024 and April 2025, and received responses from both, which it considered before deciding to issue the infringement decision. Factors such as each parties' turnover, the seriousness of their infringements as well as aggravating and mitigating factors were considered in deciding the financial penalties for each. Hanshan's S$2.6 million fine was discounted twice, once because it cooperated with the investigation, and a second time because it admitted to the infringement. CCCS warned: 'Businesses asked to participate in anti-competitive information exchanges should immediately decline participation, publicly distance themselves from such discussions, and report the matter to CCCS.'
