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.
