An Amsterdam court ruled it can hear a Dutch consumer mass claim against Agoda and Booking Holdings. It is a jurisdiction ruling; no liability has been found.
Cover image: Booking.com's headquarters on Oosterdokseiland, Amsterdam (2023 file photo) — photo by Ceescamel, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
An Amsterdam court has ruled that it can hear the Booking.com mass claim against Agoda and US parent Booking Holdings, rejecting their challenges to its jurisdiction in a Dutch consumer case over hotel prices. The interim judgment of Wednesday 28 October (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:10574), published on 30 October, settles only where the case is heard. The court has not found that Booking.com, Agoda or Booking Holdings acted unlawfully. The allegations are unproven; Booking.com has contested them, according to Dutch news agency ANP.
The claimant, Stichting Consumenten Competition Claims (CCC), is backed by the consumers’ association Consumentenbond, which reports more than 270,000 sign-ups. CCC alleges that Booking.com’s parity clauses with hotels pushed up room prices and that Booking.com and Agoda used “dark patterns” to mislead users.
What did the court decide, and what did it leave open?
Of 13 defendants, only Booking Holdings and Agoda were still contesting jurisdiction. Booking Holdings challenged only the consumer-law claims against itself, saying it is a non-operational holding company and that Booking.com runs the website. The court said a basis for group liability was not evidently lacking, that Booking Holdings had disputed CCC’s facts only briefly, and that examining the merits now would go too far.
On the competition claims against Agoda, it applied a prima facie test: it was enough that it was “not excluded” (our translation) that the defendants form one undertaking.
| Defendant | Based in | What it challenged | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Three Booking.com companies, incl. Booking.com B.V. | Amsterdam | Nothing | Claims proceed |
| Booking Holdings Inc. | Delaware, US | Consumer-law claims only | Rejected; pays €1,495 costs |
| Eight Booking.com entities | Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland | Consumer-law claims, until CCC dropped them | Competition claims proceed |
| Agoda Company Pte Ltd | Singapore | All claims against it | Rejected; pays €1,495 costs |
Why could Agoda not leave the Booking.com mass claim?
Agoda, which the ruling says serves mainly the Asian market, argued that it works entirely separately from Booking.com, runs its services from Singapore and Bangkok, and that its terms of use send disputes to Singapore’s courts. Each argument failed.
Applying the EU Court of Justice’s Sumal test, the court noted Booking Holdings owns 100 per cent of both Booking.com and Agoda and that the presumption of decisive influence had not been rebutted. Agoda sells the same service, hotel bookings: a sufficient link, the court found. “Sideways or horizontal” liability between sister companies is not excluded, the court said, in our translation.
Agoda’s Singapore forum clause did not bind CCC, which is not a party to consumers’ contracts. The site was also aimed at the Netherlands, the court found: it is in Dutch with prices in euros, and CCC said without challenge that it accepted the Dutch payment method iDEAL until very recently.
Who is covered, and how much does the claim seek?
The competition claim covers anyone who, while living in the Netherlands, booked a European hotel room online since 1 January 2013, via Booking.com, another booking site or a hotel’s own website. The Consumentenbond says they probably overpaid.
According to the claims annexed to the ruling, CCC seeks €869 million for that group and €96 million for the dark-patterns group, €965 million combined, plus orders to scrap all parity obligations. Bidwell Investments, a Burford Capital subsidiary, funds the case, the Consumentenbond says.
How does the case fit with other action against Booking.com?
The ruling records that Booking.com dropped its broad parity clause on 1 July 2015 after commitments to the French, Italian and Swedish authorities, and removed the narrower version from its terms by 2 December 2024 at the latest. Germany’s Bundeskartellamt found on 22 December 2015 that even the narrow clause breached competition law, a decision upheld by the country’s Federal Court of Justice on 18 May 2021.
The European Commission separately opened Digital Services Act proceedings against Booking.com on 21 October over fake listings and phishing. A US class action alleges that Expedia’s rate-parity clause inflated hotel prices. See our explainer on how online travel agencies such as Booking.com and Agoda make money.
What happens next?
On 25 November the parties are due to tell the court how the case should continue. The Consumentenbond expects the next hearing in the first half of 2027.
ANP said Booking.com had been asked to respond. We found no public statement from Booking.com, Booking Holdings or Agoda on the ruling or any appeal as of 1 November 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Did the Dutch court find Booking.com or Agoda liable?
No. The 28 October judgment is an interim ruling on jurisdiction only. It lets the Amsterdam District Court hear the claims against Booking Holdings and Agoda alongside the Booking.com companies. It did not examine whether parity clauses or “dark patterns” harmed anyone.
Who can join the Booking.com class action in the Netherlands?
According to the Consumentenbond, anyone aged 18 or over, or younger with parental consent, can sign up if, while living in the Netherlands, they booked a hotel room online at least once since 1 January 2013 via Booking.com, a similar site such as Agoda or Expedia, or a hotel’s own website. Consumentenbond membership is not required, and the fee is at most 25 per cent of any award.
Why is Agoda part of a case about Booking.com?
CCC says Agoda, wholly owned by Booking Holdings, belongs to the same economic unit under EU competition law and used misleading “dark patterns” on its own site. The court found it was not excluded that Agoda is part of the same undertaking, and that its Dutch-language, euro-priced site targeted the Netherlands.
When will the court rule on the merits?
No date has been set. The case returns to the docket on 25 November 2026. The Consumentenbond says the court must first decide whether CCC may bring the claim, Booking.com can raise further objections, and the next hearing is expected in the first half of 2027.
