Berlin, December 16, 2025 — The Berlin II Regional Court has ruled that Booking.com must compensate 1,099 accommodation operators for damages caused by the use of unlawful “best price clauses,” marking a significant development in long-running disputes over competition in the online hotel booking market.
In a judgment delivered on Tuesday (16 December), Civil Chamber 61 found that Booking.com BV, based in the Netherlands, and its German subsidiary Booking.com (Deutschland) GmbH are jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by accommodation providers since January 1, 2013. The ruling follows a declaratory action brought by 1,288 plaintiffs, including hotels and other accommodation operators across Germany.
While the court confirmed Booking.com’s liability in principle, it did not determine the specific amount of compensation owed to each operator. The judges said the exact level of damage and its causal link to the contested clauses could not be clarified within the scope of the proceedings.
Best Price Clauses Under Scrutiny
Booking.com operates one of the world’s largest online accommodation platforms, charging commissions—typically between 10% and 15% of the room price—for non-cancellable bookings. For years, the platform required accommodation providers to adhere to so-called best price clauses.
From the mid-2000s until June 30, 2015, Booking.com used “broad” best price clauses, obliging accommodation operators to offer rooms on the platform at prices and conditions at least as favorable as those on any other sales channel. From July 1, 2015, these were replaced by “narrow” clauses, which prevented providers from offering lower prices through their own direct online sales.
Germany’s competition authority, the Bundeskartellamt, ruled in December 2015 that the narrow clauses violated competition law and ordered their removal by January 31, 2016. That decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Justice in May 2021.
Court Finds Restriction Of Competition
The Berlin court held that both broad and narrow best price clauses unlawfully restricted competition by limiting accommodation operators’ freedom to set prices. According to the judges, the clauses deprived operators of the ability to reflect commission savings in lower direct prices and made it harder to sell remaining capacity through discounted last-minute offers.
The chamber also pointed to broader market effects, including market segmentation and oligopolization, noting that the impact of the clauses could extend beyond the period in which they were formally in force. On that basis, the court deemed the declaratory action admissible, as potential ongoing damage could not yet be conclusively quantified.
Claims For Commission Refunds Rejected
However, the court rejected another key part of the plaintiffs’ case. The accommodation operators had also sought a declaration that Booking.com must reimburse commissions paid between January 2006 and February 2025 if those commissions were inflated due to the unlawful clauses. The judges ruled this claim inadmissible, stating that commissions already paid represented a “closed set of facts” and should have been pursued through a quantified payment claim instead.
Additionally, the court dismissed claims from 189 plaintiffs for procedural or substantive reasons. In 70 cases, proper authorization of legal representatives was not proven, while in 118 cases the court found no evidence that the plaintiffs were affected by the use of best price clauses. One further claim was dismissed for other reasons.
Appeal Still Possible
The judgment is not yet final. Both sides may appeal to the Berlin Court of Appeal within one month of formal service of the decision.
The case, registered under file number 61 O 60/24 Kart, is being closely watched by the hospitality and digital platform sectors, as it could pave the way for individual damages claims and influence future regulation of online booking platforms in Germany and beyond.
