In the end, the hoteliers won, at least for the moment: the “Booking” amendment al competition bill, approved yesterday (almost unanimously) by the Chamber, clearly established that "the clauses obliging hoteliers not to offer end customers better prices and conditions than those charged by the same company through third party intermediaries will be null and void, also onlineregardless of the law governing the contract".
So away with the so-called parity rate, which had already been partially reduced by the Antitrust in the spring, recognizing the possibility for individual hotels to publish different prices but only on the various OTAs (online booking platforms such as Booking, which has the largest market share in Europe, but also Expedia, etc) e not on the accommodation website. The parity rate had been the subject of a dispute that began almost a year and a half ago when, on 7 May 2014, when Federalberghi reported to theCompetition and market authority (and the same is done by colleagues in France, where in the meantime the new law directly desired by the Minister of Economy Emmanuel Macron has already been passed) the so-called “Most Favorite Nation Clauses” applied by Booking and Expedia, i.e. the clauses that bind the accommodation facilities not to offer their hotel services at better prices and conditions through other online booking agencies and, in general, through any other booking channel, including hotel websites.
On April 21st, the Italian Antitrust, as well as the French and Swedish ones, accepted the solutions spontaneously proposed by the Dutch portal (Booking is a Dutch company owned by the US group Priceline), and the French and Swedish bodies did the same: yes to the parity rate, but only for the hotel websites, while through other channels (OTA, email, telephone) the hotels could offer lower rates than those agreed with the portals. “A good compromise – he commented Andrew D'Amico, Regional Director for Italy of Booking.com -: the decisions of the bodies of Italy, France and Sweden they have also been approved by the EU Commission”. Federalberghi, through the words of the Director General Alessandro Nucara, he retorted, quoting instead the case of Germany, where a judge had already "established the complete parity rate, with a final sentence".
In the end, Parliament went beyond the decision of the Antitrust, and thanks to an amendment by the deputy Tiziano Arlotti (Pd) has cleared customs without ifs and buts gHotels - if the competition bill, which is now being voted on by the Senate, becomes law - will be able to offer rooms at lower rates than those offered by Booking.com and other intermediation sites, and this also on their website. So the hoteliers, the official ones, perhaps "old" traditional but who defend the category as a whole, are making the most of it. “The clause that prevents hotels from charging lower rates on their website harms the little ones”, Federalberghi thundered for months. "We offer visibility to everyone and services that small hoteliers could not afford", replied from Booking.
In reality, that visibility comes at a price, and also at a fairly steep price: it's no mystery that to get the best positions la fee tax from Booking exceeds 20% and can even approach 30%. “But it is only and exclusively by choice of the hotelier. Those who pay less are still offered all the services, including web marketing and assistance in 42 languages”, he commented some time ago on FIRST online Andrew D'Amico. In any case, even if few know it, the way to get around the parity rate in the manner established by the Antitrust already existed: thein fact, the agreement provided for the total “parity availability”, i.e. full freedom for hotels to establish the number and type of rooms to be sold on the portals, without the obligation to grant preferential conditions to OTAs. In other words, a hotel can already put standard rooms on Booking and economy rooms on its website, thus applying - in fact - lower prices, even if (in theory) commensurate with a different quality of service offered.
