The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/legislation_en just scored a win for hotel suppliers and competition advocates alike. With Booking.com officially designated as a “gatekeeper”, the travel giant was forced to scrap rate parity clauses across the European Economic Area. That means hotels can now — finally — offer lower prices on their own websites without triggering retaliation or delisting. Progress? Absolutely. But let’s not stop there.
It’s time to ask a bigger, more uncomfortable question. Why are we still tolerating full content clauses from Global Distribution Systems (GDSs)? OK they are going away with NDC but that will take some time. But, while we’re at it, why should OTAs get a free pass when they impose similar “most-favoured” conditions across multiple verticals — from flights to tours?
Full Content Clauses: The Original Digital Parity Trap
For decades, GDSs like Amadeus, Sabre, and Travelport (through its various brands) have relied on Full Content Agreements (FCAs) that force airlines to provide identical fares and availability across all channels — or risk losing access to massive corporate and agency markets. It’s the same parity logic that Booking.com was using. The difference? The GDSs are still getting away with it, albeit less and less via EDIFACT and the results of the AA vs Sabre Lawsuit. https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Sabre-US-Airways-verdict
IMHO This setup:
- Disincentivizes innovation in airline distribution.
- Stifles competition from direct channels and NDC-based players.
- Keeps pricing power in the hands of intermediaries.
So what gives?
The DMA’s Big Omission
The DMA was supposed to curb the power of digital “gatekeepers” — platforms that control access between businesses and users. That’s exactly what the GDSs do. They sit between airlines and sellers (corporate agencies, OTAs, TMCs) and control access to content, availability, and in many cases, the right to be seen.
Yet so far, no GDS has been designated a gatekeeper.
This is not just an oversight — it’s a regulatory blind spot. If Booking.com’s control of hotel visibility and rate parity triggers gatekeeper status, the GDSs’ lock on airline fare content should do the same. All OTAs, especially those selling flights, packages, and activities, are similarly ripe for review.
Airlines May Be Next — And That’s the Twist
But before airlines start celebrating the possible demise of full content clauses, here’s the caveat:
Airlines themselves may also qualify as gatekeepers — if they wield disproportionate control over how fares are shown or priced across channels.
That’s right. The same control airlines want to reclaim under NDC and Offer-Order models may be legally indistinguishable from platform dominance in the DMA’s eyes. If an airline requires exclusive pricing on its own site, blocks API access, or penalizes third-party sellers for discounting, it may be acting like a gatekeeper itself.
The irony is rich: the supplier, long shackled by parity clauses, could now become the next target of the same rules it cheered.
Where Do We Go From Here?
What’s needed is regulatory consistency:
- Apply gatekeeper scrutiny to GDSs and OTAs, especially in air distribution, where they control visibility, access, and commission structures.
- Hold airlines to a reasonable standard — protect their right to differentiate, but avoid allowing anti-competitive exclusivity.
- Update the DMA and national competition policies to address the vertical integration of content, distribution, and pricing in travel ecosystems.
Final Thought
Gatekeeping isn’t just a tech giant problem. It’s a specific travel industry problem. And if the EU is serious about unlocking competition, it needs to widen its lens — beyond social media and app stores — and focus squarely on the entrenched infrastructure of travel commerce.
Because as long as full content clauses remain untouched, we’re still living in the past.
Please feel free to let me know what you think.