Booking.com terminates your partner account: what rights do you have?

Hotels and other accommodation partners use Booking.com to bring their rooms to the attention of potential guests. If Booking.com decides to terminate the partnership, the hotel will no longer be available for booking on the platform. This has direct consequences for the number of reservations and day-to-day business operations.

The partner is not powerless in such a situation. Booking.com cannot always close a hotel account without explanation or warning. Depending on the circumstances, the hotel may be able to challenge the decision.

The European P2B‑Regulation grants business users of online platforms various rights. For example, Booking.com must clearly state in advance the grounds on which it may terminate its services to a hotel. In many cases, it must also provide reasons for the termination and give the hotel the opportunity to challenge the decision.

When may Booking.com terminate a hotel account?

Precisely because of this dependency, Booking.com may not simply terminate a partner account. In short, four conditions apply to termination.

1. Breach of the rules. Booking.com must set out clear rules in its terms and conditions and demonstrate that the hotel has breached them.

2. Notice period. Booking.com must observe a notice period of at least 30 days. However, there are exceptions.

3. Reasons. A closure must always be justified.

4. Proportionality. Not every minor breach may immediately lead to closure.

Breach of the partner agreement.

Under Article 3(1)(c) of the P2B Regulation, Booking.com must state in its terms and conditions all the grounds on which an account may be terminated. Those terms must also be drafted in clear and comprehensible language. This means that the partner must be reasonably able to foresee the consequences of its actions. Vague, non-specific or insufficiently detailed wording is not permitted. Terms that are not clear and comprehensible are void and therefore do not apply.

The agreement with Booking.com is governed by the General Delivery Terms (GDT). The GDT also include all information on the extranet. Therefore, if Booking.com publishes further instructions or requirements on the extranet, the partner must comply with them. This makes it difficult to keep track of exactly which requirements apply, as the materials on the extranet may be amended and are scattered across the platform. 

Articles 7.2 and 7.3 of the GDT set out the grounds on which an account may be closed. These grounds range from “breaching the agreement” to review manipulation, commission avoidance and non-payment of invoices.

Although the GDT are comprehensive, Booking.com must always demonstrate that one of the rules has been breached. Booking.com bears the full burden of proof in this respect. It is not sufficient for Booking.com to show that a breach of the rules is plausible or that it has strong suspicions. This may provide an opportunity to challenge a termination.

30-day notice period

Under Article 4(1) of the P2B Regulation, Booking.com must, in principle, observe a 30-day notice period. During that notice period, the partner must be given the opportunity to challenge the termination or clarify any ambiguities. This is important because many terminations are imposed unilaterally, without the hotel owner having had the opportunity to present their side of the story.

However, there is an important exception to this rule. Where there are repeated breaches, Booking.com may terminate the agreement with immediate effect. Booking.com must then be able to demonstrate that multiple breaches have actually occurred. In practice, Booking.com regularly misuses this exception to close an account with immediate effect. As a result, the partner immediately suffers a loss of revenue.

The difficulty is that the partner is then faced with a fait accompli. There is little point in relying on a notice period if the account has already been closed. Legal action generally takes longer than 30 days. Hotel owners should therefore be aware that a Booking.com account may be terminated suddenly.

Statement of reasons

Booking.com must also provide a statement of reasons for a closure (Article 4(1) of the P2B Regulation). Those reasons must at least include the specific facts and circumstances underlying the decision to terminate the account. The decision must also include relevant third-party reports, such as guest complaints or negative reviews. The reasons must contain sufficient detail to allow the partner to verify the correctness of the decision and determine whether it is worthwhile to challenge it. 

In practice, Booking.com may provide limited reasons for closures and merely refer to the provision alleged to have been breached. This can prevent hotel owners from responding effectively and challenging unjustified decisions. This limited reasoning may reflect a desire to protect internal control processes. 

The partner is therefore in a difficult position. Booking.com is legally required to provide reasons, but there is no quick remedy to enforce this obligation. Every day that the hotel owner waits for an explanation, the loss of revenue increases. It is therefore advisable to carry out a self-assessment and investigate internally what the possible cause might be, such as a dissatisfied guest, a negative review or a payment issue. 

Proportionality

Under Dutch law, contracting parties must act reasonably and fairly towards one another. This means, among other things, that not every breach of the GDT may immediately lead to closure. Booking.com is an important sales channel for many hotels and cannot easily be replaced. As a result, many hotels are highly dependent on Booking.com, and closure can lead to substantial loss of revenue. It would therefore be unreasonable for a minor breach to result in permanent closure.

Closure is therefore a measure of last resort. Before an account may be closed, Booking.com must demonstrably consider whether less far-reaching measures are possible, such as a temporary suspension, partial withdrawal of services, a warning, additional arrangements or a lower ranking. 

Whether a closure is proportionate also depends on the specific circumstances of the case. For example, if a breach has caused no harm to the platform or the guest, there is less justification for closure. The same applies where the guest has already been compensated for any loss. In addition, closure may be more justified in the case of an intentional breach. The duration of the partnership, average revenue and the hotel’s dependence on Booking.com may also be relevant. 

Conclusion

Hotels may therefore rely on various legal protections against closure. This means that the closure of a Booking.com account may be successfully challenged. However, this requires the hotel to be fully aware of its legal position and rights. In my next blog post, I will explain the practical steps a partner can take following a closure.

Please feel free to leave a comment below this article if you have any questions.