San Francisco sued Booking Holdings, GuestReservations.com and BookOnline.com, alleging Priceline Partner Solutions supplied rooms, hotel information, booking technology and payment processing for sites that misled travelers into thinking they were booking directly. The city seeks refunds, an injunction and civil penalties; Booking Holdings said the suit lacks merit. The allegations remain unproven.
Sources
San Francisco sued two hotel-booking businesses Wednesday, alleging they used paid search ads and hotel-branded webpages to make travelers think they were booking directly—then charged them as much as 85 percent more. The lawsuit targets GuestReservations.com, BookOnline.com, and Booking Holdings, the $186 billion travel giant behind Booking.com and Priceline. The city alleges Priceline Partner Solutions supplied the sites with rooms, hotel information, booking technology, and payment processing while earning revenue from completed reservations. San Francisco is seeking customer refunds, an injunction, and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. An 85 percent markup In one test, the city searched an iPhone for “palace hotel sf.” Two sponsored results appeared above Marriott’s official Palace Hotel page, including a Guest Reservations address containing the hotel’s name and palacehotel.bookonline.com. Guest Reservations offered a king room with flexible cancellation for $775, according to the complaint. Marriott listed a comparable room for $419—making the Guest Reservations price 85 percent higher. BookOnline quoted $526 for a nonrefundable room, 38 percent above Marriott’s cheapest public rate. Both sites identified themselves as independent booking services, but the city alleges the disclosures were easy to miss. Guest Reservations placed its notice in fine print, while BookOnline’s allegedly "blurred away” within a fraction of a second. The pages focused on a single hotel, and BookOnline displayed a local phone number that routed callers to its own reservation system. Google said it prohibits third-party travel agencies from putting a hotel’s name before their own domain in an advertisement’s displayed web address—the format shown in the city’s examples. “We require third-party booking sites to clearly identify themselves, and we prohibit ads that falsely claim an affiliation with a specific hotel,” a Google spokesperson told Inc. “When we find ads that violate our policies, we take action.” Google did not say whether it had removed the ads cited in the lawsuit. The company said it blocked or removed more than 421.5 million ads under its misrepresentation policies last year. Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of competition and market fairness at the Consumer Federation of America,