Over 10,000 hotels join complaint against Booking.com – DW – 08/04/2025
European hotel owners are joining together in a class action suit against the online platform Booking.com, with more than 10,000 hotels have now signed on to the damages suit.
According to the Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafes in Europe HOTREC, which represents the industry within the EU, hotel owners will seek compensation for losses incurred between 2004 and 2024 as a result of so-called "best-price" clauses that keep hotels from offering rooms for less on their own sites.
The initiative is also backed by 30 national hotel associations, including the German Hotel Association (IHA).
Netherlands-based Booking.com used the clauses as a way to prevent what it called "free-rider" bookings, which it defined as a customer discovering a hotel on Booking.com but then booking directly with the hotel and not the online giant.
These clauses had required hotels not to offer rooms at lower prices on other platforms, including their own websites.
A suit to be brought before an Amsterdam court by the Hotel Claims Alliance — and supported by HOTREC and 30 more hotel associations — cites a September 19, 2024 European Court of Justice (ECJ) verdict finding best-price clauses illegal.
The ECJ ruled that online platforms could operate without putting such restrictions on partner hotels.
Booking.com did away with the clause in 2024 as a result of the European Union Digital Markets Act.
"European hoteliers have long suffered from unfair conditions and excessive costs," according to HOTREC President Alexandros Vassilikos.
"This joint initiative sends a clear message: abusive practices in the digital market will not be tolerated by the hospitality industry in Europe."
HOTREC on Monday announced an extension of the time limit to join the suit against Booking.com until August 29.
"The class action is receiving overwhelming support," IHA Managing Director Markus Luthe told Germany's DPA news agency.
Booking.com said has not received an official lawsuit, according to reporting by DPA.
"This is a statement from HOTREC, not a filed class action," the company said in response to an inquiry.
It also rejected the claims by the hotel associations, and the legal arguments based on the ECJ ruling.
"Each of our accommodation partners is free to set their own distribution and pricing strategies and can offer their rooms wherever they choose," the statement said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
5 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Major Climate-GDP Study Under Review After Facing Challenge
A blockbuster study published in top science journal Nature last year warned that unchecked climate change could slash global GDP by a staggering 62 percent by century's end, setting off alarm bells among financial institutions worldwide. But a re-analysis by Stanford University researchers in California, released Wednesday, challenges that conclusion -- finding the projected hit to be about three times smaller and broadly in line with earlier estimates, after excluding an anomalous result tied to Uzbekistan. The saga may culminate in a rare retraction, with Nature telling AFP it will have "further information to share soon" -- a move that would almost certainly be seized upon by climate-change skeptics. Both the original authors -- who have acknowledged errors -- and the Stanford team hoped the transparency of the review process would bolster, rather than undermine public confidence in science. Climate scientist Maximilian Kotz and co-authors at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), published the original research in April 2024, using datasets from 83 countries to assess how changes in temperature and precipitation affect economic growth. It became the second most cited climate paper of the year, according to the UK-based Carbon Brief outlet, and informed policy at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, US federal government and others. AFP was among numerous media outlets to report on it. Yet the eye-popping claim that global GDP would be lowered by 62 percent by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario soon drew scrutiny. "That's why our eyebrows went up because most people think that 20 percent is a very big number," scientist and economist Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers behind the re-analysis, also published in Nature, told AFP. When they tried to replicate the results, Hsiang and his Stanford colleagues spotted serious anomalies in the data surrounding Uzbekistan. Specifically, there was a glaring mismatch in the provincial growth figures cited in the Potsdam paper and the national numbers reported for the same periods by the World Bank. "When we dropped Uzbekistan, suddenly everything changed. And we were like, 'whoa, that's not supposed to happen,'" Hsiang said. "We felt like we had to document it in this form because it's been used so widely in policy making." The authors of the 2024 paper acknowledged methodological flaws, including currency exchange issues, and on Wednesday uploaded a corrected version, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. "We're waiting for Nature to announce their further decision on what will happen next," Kotz told AFP. He stressed that while "there can be methodological issues and debate within the scientific community," the bigger picture was unchanged: climate change will have substantial economic impacts in the decades ahead. Frances Moore, an associate professor in environmental economics at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in either the original paper or the re-analysis, agreed. She told AFP the correction did not alter overall policy implications. Projections of an economic slowdown by the year 2100 are "extremely bad" regardless of the Kotz-led study, she said, and "greatly exceed the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize the climate, many times over." "Future work to identify specific mechanisms by which variation in climate affects economic output over the medium and long-term is critical to both better understand these findings and prepare society to respond to coming climate disruption," she also noted. Asked whether Nature would be retracting the Potsdam paper, Karl Ziemelis, the journal's physical sciences editor, did not answer directly but said an editor's note was added to the paper in November 2024 "as soon as we became aware of an issue" with the data and methodology. "We are in the final stages of this process and will have further information to share soon," he told AFP. The episode comes at a delicate time for climate science, under heavy fire from the US government under President Donald Trump's second term, as misinformation about the impacts of human-driven greenhouse gases abounds. Yet even in this environment, Hsiang argued, the episode showed the robust nature of the scientific method. "One team of scientists checking other scientists' work and finding mistakes, the other team acknowledging it, correcting the record, this is the best version of science." Researchers AFP spoke to said the effects of heat on economies of countries near the tropics is magnified, like the riverbank dwellers carrying banana produce in northern Brazil AFP
DW
9 hours ago
- DW
Italy approves controversial bridge tying Sicily to mainland – DW – 08/06/2025
PM Meloni's coalition hailed the project as an economic boost, while critics worry about its impact and cost, which comes in at over €13 billion. If completed, the bridge would be the world's longest. A committee of Italian ministers on Wednesday green lit plans to build a 3.3-kilometer (2.05-mile)-long bridge connecting the island of Sicily across the Strait of Messina to mainland Italy. The controversial project has been in discussions for decades, but the latest plans call for completion of the bridge by 2032. If completed, Strait of Messina Bridge would break Turkey's Canakkale Bridge's record as the longest in the world at 2.02-kilometers long Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's coalition government hailed the state-funded project as an economic boost for Italy's impoverished south. "It is not an easy task but we consider it an investment in Italy's present and future, and we like difficult challenges when they make sense," Meloni said, according to her office. Transport Minister Matteo Salvini told a news conference in Rome the bridge will be "the biggest infrastructure project in the West," Critics have questioned the wisdom of building a record long bridge in an earthquake zone, while also pointing to its cost, the possible environmental damage it may cause and fears the mafia might infiltrate construction contracts. Earlier this week, environmental associations filed a complaint with the European Union over serious risks from building the bridge to the local environment. Nicola Fratoianni, an MP of the Greens and Left Alliance, slammed a "mega-project that will divert a huge amount of public resources" and "risks turning into a gigantic black hole," The center-left Democratic Party warned that the project "tramples environmental, safety and European norms, and common sense." Many believe that the mega project, which has been discussed since the 1960s, will actually never materialize. But ministers have called Wednesday's approval by the government committee the furthest the project has ever got. The €13.5 billion ($15.6 billion) project has been planned for decades, with various hurdles and concerns delaying its completion. The bridge is meant to go over the Strait of Messina, a narrow strip of water between Sicily and the region of Calabria. It should boost two railway lines in the middle and three lanes of traffic on either side. Proponents expect it will massively cut travel time from and to Sicily, which are now delayed by ferry rides that involve long waits. Work on the project could begin as early as September or October, Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini told reporters. He hailed the project, alongside a bundle of other new roads, railways and stations, as a "development accelerator" for impoverished Sicily and Calabria. He even hinted that the project could also help achieve military purposes. "It is obvious that it is dual-use and can therefore be used for security reasons too," he said in a press conference.
DW
12 hours ago
- DW
What if India and China stop buying Russian oil? – DW – 08/06/2025
Donald Trump is tightening sanctions loopholes that fund Moscow's war machine. What does a crackdown on Russia's oil trade mean for global markets — and economic heavyweights like China and India? India and China have pushed back firmly against US President Donald Trump's threats of secondary sanctions — penalties for doing business with a sanctioned country — over their continued purchases of Russia's oil, which is a key revenue stream for Moscow's war in Ukraine. Both nations vowed to protect their energy security and economic sovereignty against what Beijing firmly called "coercion and pressure" from the United States. China became the biggest importer of Russian oil in 2022. India, meanwhile, accused the West of hypocrisy, pointing out that the European Union continues to import Russian energy, despite having massively reduced its reliance on it since the war began.. New Delhi further noted that Washington had actively supported its oil purchases from Russia, which ramped up shortly after the Russian invasion, to help stabilize global oil prices. India's oil purchases from Russia have grown nearly 19-fold over the past four years, from 0.1 to 1.9 million barrels a day, while China's rose by 50% to 2.4 million barrels a day. Petras Katinas, a Lithuania-based energy analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), told DW that India, Russia's second-largest oil buyer, had saved up to $33 billion in energy costs between 2022 and 2024 as Moscow offered large price cuts when the US and Europe cut their reliance on Russian oil and gas. India's longtime policy of balancing ties with the US, Russia and China, without prioritizing any side, had "underpinned" the decision to buy discounted Russian crude, with New Delhi "prioritizing energy security and affordability," Katinas said. Having already imposed a 25% tariff on Indian imports25% tariff on Indian imports, Trump issued an executive order on Wednesday, imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India over its purchases of Russian oil. Oil prices rose nearly 1% on the news, while Indian media outlets reported that the new levy could spike the country's oil bill by up to $11 billion. New Delhi labeled the additional levy "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable." Trump said the tariffs would take effect in 21 days, giving India and Russia time to negotiate with the administration on the import taxes. The president was also expected to announce wider secondary sanctions on other countries and entities with which Russia trades oil. Secondary sanctions would be another major blow for the Russian economy, already reeling from Western sanctions. With military spending now exceeding 6% of GDP and real inflation estimated by some analysts at 15-20% versus the official 9% figure, Russia is burning through cash, putting serious pressure on its budget and arms factories. For global markets, new sanctions could trigger a seismic shock in energy prices and trade flows reminiscent of 2022, when the oil price surged and Russia bypassed Western sanctions by striking discounted energy deals with two of the world's largest economies. "If India had not bought Russian crude [in 2022], it's anyone's guess what the oil price would have been — $100 (€86), $120, $300 [per barrel]," Sumit Ritolia, a New Delhi-based oil analyst from trade research house Kpler, told DW. WTI crude hovered between $74 and $95 per barrel in the weeks before the invasion. Trump's 25% "secondary tariff" could leave India with no choice but to scale back at least some of its oil trade with Russia. Any additional sanctions would only make matters worse. Katinas said secondary sanctions "raise the stakes" significantly, "threatening Indian companies' access to the US financial system and exposing banks, refineries, and shipping firms to serious repercussions given their integration into global markets." If Russia's 5 million barrels a day were suddenly removed from the oil market, analysts think oil prices could surge once again, as affected countries scramble to source other supplies. Even with oil cartel OPEC recently increasing output, replacing such a large volume would be exceptionally difficult in the short term, given limited spare capacity and logistical constraints. "There is nowhere to get those 5 million [barrels] fast enough to prevent a spike in oil prices." Alexander Kolyandr, senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, told the UK's newspaper. Ritolia told DW it may take Indian firms up to a year to cut their reliance on Russian oil, if required. Higher oil prices would trigger a sharp rise in inflation both in the US and worldwide. The US Federal Reserve has estimated that every $10 increase in crude adds about 0.2 percentage points to US inflation. India's central bank reached a similar conclusion. If prices were to climb from the current $66 a barrel to $110-$120 per barrel, a roughly 1 percentage point inflation rise would drive up costs for consumers and businesses — especially in energy, transport, and food. Katinas said China, whose total trade with the US is more than four times the size of India's, "might be exempt" from the new US measures. With the world's two largest economies conducting over $580 billion of trade, China's sheer economic scale gives it bargaining power that India lacks. China's chokehold on the supply of rare earth minerals — a persistent friction point in US-China relations — may serve as yet another lever Beijing is pulling to temper Trump's stance. With India lacking comparable leverage, Trump earlier this week doubled down on New Delhi, saying the likely impact of his new sanctions on Russia and India would "take their dead economies down together." India is, meanwhile, no longer reaping the same windfall from Russian oil as it did in 2022, when discounts ranged from $15 to $20 per barrel. That margin has now narrowed to around $5, according to Kpler's Ritolia. Eager to replenish its war chest, Russia is aggressively maximizing energy revenues, buoyed by rising demand from Turkey — now its third-largest oil customer — and across Asia, where Russian crude is discreetly reexported under alternative labels to sidestep US sanctions. Still, Indian refiners continue to buy. Imports hit an 11-month high in June at 2.08 million barrels per day, accounting for 44% of India's total crude intake — a sharp rebound driven by geopolitical hedging and price competitiveness. Beyond the rhetoric, China's likely response seems guided by its earlier reaction to secondary sanctions. Chinese banks are increasingly refusing Russian transactions, even in yuan, forcing Moscow to rely on opaque intermediaries and third-country workarounds. Beijing sees oil imports as a priority that is mostly shielded from political pressure, India is seen as more likely to hedge: trimming purchases if pressured, but not abandoning discounted Russian crude entirely Ritolia speculated that India might "reduce" its Russian oil imports, but added: "I don't see us going down to zero anytime soon."
