In 2015, the German law firm Schneider Geiwitz & Partner initiated legal proceedings against Booking.com on behalf of Hotel Wikingerhof, situated in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. The hotel sought a cease-and-desist order, alleging that Booking.com was abusing its dominant market position.

Initially, the Regional Court of Kiel dismissed the case due to a lack of international jurisdiction. Booking.com’s headquarters are in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Subsequently, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig deemed the Regional Court’s decision erroneous but ultimately upheld the conclusion that the German courts did not have international jurisdiction, albeit for different reasons.

Following an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the BGH referred legal questions regarding the interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which rendered its judgment on 24 November 2020 (Case C-59/19). The ECJ determined that German courts do indeed have international jurisdiction to adjudicate an abuse of dominance claim filed by a German hotel against Booking.com.

Consequently, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig revisited the Wikingerhof case, this time addressing substantive legal issues. The core question was whether Booking.com had abused its dominant market position by advertising accommodation prices as “discounted” without the hotel’s consent and despite the fact that the hotel was not offering any discounts.

Additionally, the court examined Booking.com’s practice of withholding guests’ contact information (such as email addresses and phone numbers) from hotels, prohibiting direct communication between hotels and guests, and imposing commissions of up to 50% through its “ranking booster” program, which allows hotels to effectively purchase a higher ranking on the platform.

In its ruling on 13 June 2022, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig concluded that Booking.com indeed maintains a dominant position in the German online booking agency market, a finding that the BGH had already affirmed in its ruling on 18 May 2021.

The court determined that Booking.com’s unauthorized discount advertising was inconsistent with the German Unfair Competition Act; however, it did not consider this alone to constitute an abuse of market power as defined by Article 102 TFEU.

Regarding the restrictions placed on hotels from directly contacting guests and the retention of guest data by Booking.com, the court found that while Booking.com likely breached its contractual obligations to the hotels, the consequences of this conduct were not severe enough to be classified as an abuse of market power.

Concerning the commissions associated with Booking.com’s “ranking booster” program, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig concluded that hotels were not mandated to utilize this service. Thus, the “ranking booster” was categorised as a voluntary enhancement that did not fall under the exploitative abuse prohibition outlined in Article 102 TFEU.

The Higher Regional Court of Schleswig denied the possibility of further appeal to the BGH, aiming to resolve the matter conclusively. However, in response to the hotels’ appeal against this denial, the BGH decided to accept the appeal on 11 February 2025.

This means that the BGH, as the highest court in Germany, will ultimately determine whether Booking.com’s aforementioned market practices align with EU competition law. Notably, the BGH’s decision to admit the appeal, which occurs in less than 5% of cases, suggests that it may not concur with the views of the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig and could arrive at significantly different conclusions.

The Wikingerhof case is part of a broader series of legal challenges Booking.com has encountered recently, primarily due to allegations that its market practices contravene competition law. For example, in July 2024, the Spanish Competition Authority levied fines exceeding 400 million euros against Booking.com for exploiting its dominant market position.

Additionally, in September 2024, the European Court of Justice (Case C-264/23) determined that Booking.com had violated EU competition law by enforcing price parity clauses on hotels. Furthermore, in December 2024, the Italian Competition Authority compelled Booking.com to revise its business practices, which were deemed inconsistent with EU competition law.