← Articles

Article · 11 October 2026 · 5 min read

Parity clauses: why your hotel couldn't be cheaper on its own website

For years, many hotels were not allowed to do something as simple as offer a lower price on their own website. Not by law, but by contract: so-called parity clauses. Understanding what they were and why they fell helps explain why the direct channel is an opportunity today.

What a parity clause is

A parity clause requires the hotel not to sell cheaper on other channels than on the platform. There were two versions. The wide one barred lower prices on any other channel, including other agencies. The narrow one, which Booking adopted from 2015, barred lower prices only on the hotel's own channels, such as its website.

Put simply: the hotel could have a website, but couldn't use it to compete on price. For the traveller, booking direct had no visible advantage.

How parity clauses fell
  1. 2015Germany: the Bundeskartellamt also bans Booking's narrow parity.
  2. 2016France: the Macron Law against both versions takes effect.
  3. 2021Germany's Federal Court of Justice upholds the ban.
  4. 2022Switzerland: Lex Booking bans parity from 1 December.
  5. 2024EU: Booking designated DMA gatekeeper (May). CJEU judgment C-264/23 (September).
  6. 2026European hotels' class action filed in Amsterdam (January).

Germany was first to say no

Germany's competition authority, the Bundeskartellamt, also prohibited Booking's narrow clauses in 2015. Booking appealed and a Düsseldorf court sided with it in 2019, but in May 2021 the German Federal Court of Justice overturned that ruling and reinstated the ban: a platform with more than 30% of the market cannot stop a hotel offering better prices on its own website.

France, Switzerland and others legislated

France declared both versions unlawful through the so-called Macron Law. In 2022 Switzerland amended its unfair competition act, the so-called Lex Booking, which since 1 December 2022 bans price, availability and condition parity clauses for accommodation.

The EU Court of Justice, in 2024

In September 2024 the Court of Justice of the European Union answered a question from an Amsterdam court in case C-264/23. It held that neither wide nor narrow clauses can be classed as ancillary restraints, meaning they are not objectively necessary for the platform to operate.

The judgment leaves the final assessment to the national court, but the message was clear: Booking cannot justify these clauses by saying its business couldn't exist without them.

The Digital Markets Act closed the door

In May 2024 the European Commission designated Booking a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Since then, in the European Union, hotels may offer different, even better, prices and conditions on their own website or other channels.

The rule also bans workarounds: Booking cannot raise commissions or demote a hotel for offering better prices elsewhere. Fines for non-compliance can reach 10% of the company's worldwide turnover.

In January 2026 a class action was also filed in Amsterdam on behalf of European hotels over the use of these clauses between 2006 and 2024. It is ongoing.

What it means for your hotel

If your hotel is in Europe, you can now offer a better price, breakfast included or more flexible cancellation on your website than on Booking. If you're outside Europe, check your contract: the DMA rules don't automatically apply everywhere.

Either way the conclusion is the same: the advantage of booking direct has to be visible. A clear, fast website that shows up on Google is how guests get to see it.

Sources

  1. CJEU press release, case C-264/23 Booking.com (September 2024)
  2. K&L Gates: German Federal Court of Justice on narrow best price clauses (2021)
  3. Baker McKenzie: Switzerland's Lex Booking
  4. Legal Dive: parity clauses after Booking's DMA designation
  5. Europe-wide class action filed against Booking.com (blue News)

Want to know how many bookings your hotel could win back?

Get your free diagnosis

Keep reading

Write to us on WhatsApp