Booking.com asked the District Court of Amsterdam to declare that its price parity clauses did not breach competition law or harm a group of German hotels, which counterclaim for damages. On March 4, 2026, after a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the court held that German findings against the clauses do not bind it. It will appoint an expert on market definition.
Latest development Mar 4, 2026
On March 4, 2026, the District Court of Amsterdam held that it is not bound by German findings against Booking.com’s parity clauses. The hotels must provide further evidence of an appreciable restriction of competition. The court will appoint an expert on market definition and plans to revisit its earlier ruling on limitation.
Why it matters
The case decides how much weight Dutch courts give to German findings against Booking.com’s parity clauses, a question for the hotel and consumer claims now pending against Booking.com in Amsterdam. The court’s market definition will shape whether the clauses are found to have restricted competition.
Background
Booking.com used wide price parity clauses with hotels until July 2015 and then narrow clauses, which barred lower prices only on the hotels’ own channels. Germany’s Federal Cartel Office prohibited the narrow clauses in December 2015, and the Federal Court of Justice upheld that decision on May 18, 2021. According to the German Hotel Association (IHA), Booking.com sued a group of German hotels in the District Court of Amsterdam in 2020. It seeks a declaration that it did not infringe competition law and is not liable. The hotels, including 25hours Hotel Company Berlin, counterclaimed for a declaration of liability and damages to be assessed in separate proceedings.
On February 22, 2023, the court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) whether the clauses were ancillary restraints and how the relevant market should be defined. On September 19, 2024, the CJEU held that neither the wide nor the narrow clauses are ancillary restraints. It said that market definition depends on a thorough factual assessment by the national court, which is not necessarily bound by the German decisions.
After a hearing on July 1, 2025, the court ruled on March 4, 2026, that it is not bound by the German decisions. It found that Booking.com had cast enough doubt on the prima facie evidence that the narrow clause appreciably restricted competition, so the hotels must provide further proof. The court said the German authorities and courts had given too little weight to whether other sales channels could replace booking platforms from travelers’ point of view. It will appoint an expert on market definition and intends to revisit its earlier ruling on limitation in light of recent CJEU case law.
The court first asked each hotel to show, in a filing due April 15, 2026, that it plausibly suffered loss from the clauses. That is the threshold for referral to separate damages proceedings. Booking.com then had six weeks to respond. Both sides read the ruling in their favor: Booking Holdings says the court backed some of its main arguments, while the IHA calls it predominantly positive for hotels.
Timeline 6 events
-
JudgmentAmsterdam court declines to treat German findings as binding
The court required further evidence from the hotels, will appoint an expert on market definition, and plans to revisit its limitation ruling.
District Court of Amsterdam: judgment of March 4, 2026AltexSoft: Booking wins partial court support in hotel pricing clause fight
-
OtherBerlin Regional Court finds Booking.com liable in a separate case
The IHA reported that the court held that Booking.com’s best price clauses breached competition law and that it is liable to the hotels. The ruling is not final.
Hotelverband Deutschland (IHA): press release of March 4, 2026
-
HearingAmsterdam court hears the parties after the EU Court of Justice ruling
The hotels asked the court to reconsider its earlier ruling on limitation in light of recent CJEU case law.
-
JudgmentEU Court of Justice rules parity clauses are not ancillary restraints
In Case C-264/23, the court left market definition to the Amsterdam court and said it is not necessarily bound by the German decisions.
District Court of Amsterdam: judgment of March 4, 2026Hotelverband Deutschland (IHA): press release of March 4, 2026
-
OrderAmsterdam court refers parity clause questions to the EU Court of Justice
The court asked whether the wide and narrow clauses are ancillary restraints and how to define the market for an online travel agency platform.
District Court of Amsterdam: referral judgment of February 22, 2023
-
JudgmentAmsterdam court issues its first interim judgment
The court held that the German competition decisions have free evidential value under Dutch law and set the relevant period as January 1, 2013, to February 1, 2016.