6 ms·

No, the Regulation (in this case) is the predatory practice, which is destroying companies. There's a reason the EU doesn't have many successful companies. DMA

No, the Regulation (in this case) is the predatory practice, which is destroying companies. There's a reason the EU doesn't have many successful companies. DMA is the problem, it's not "that hotels are allowed to provide cheaper prices themselves". DMA does not regulate (or provide) that "hotels are allowed to provide cheaper prices themselves" because hotels were always allowed to do this. Even I admit that DMA has a couple good things, but it is overwhelmed by the bad. DMA goes way, way too far and it causes destruction. EU policies are extremely overbearing, arrogant and totalitarian. This is destroying business.

jeltz 2y ago
So what are the concrete problems with the DMA? I do not know it well enough but as a EU citizen and small business owner I am generally very happy with other EU regulations.
- deeth_starr_v 2y ago
  I’m not sure you’ll get a good answer. They’ve been on HN for 9 years and have -3 karma lol
  - personomas 2y ago
    Just because my opinions aren't popular, doesn't mean I'm not capable of giving good answers. Or you're the bandwagon guy who just likes who's most popular then??
- belorn 2y ago
  From the keypoints of the DMA, this change should require that: Booking.com can not prevent hotels from providing booking through other sites. booking.com can not prevent hotels from advertising special deals without giving booking.com a cut. booking.com must give hotels tools to independent verify advertisements that hotels are paying for. Booking.com must give hotels access to booking data in real time, and must provide export options for such data. Booking.com can not give booking.com owned hotels preference over other hotels. (not sure if there are such hotels). Booking.com can not compete with hotels using the hotels own booking data.
  - com 2y ago
    This all sounds very good for open markets and capitalism. As a consumer I should benefit, and well-run hotels too, I suppose, if I were ever to stay in one.
    - varispeed 2y ago
      These regulations should have been done decades ago. Now these lead to corporations growing abnormally big with immense power to corrupt policymakers and help them create regulatory capture. It's great that EU sees some sense and does not give in to the temptation of easy money from big corporations.
  - moi2388 2y ago
    All of that sounds very fair.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Number 1: Booking.com has never prevented hotels from providing booking through other sites. Number 2: Booking.com has always demanded that any room sold by them cannot be cheaper anywhere else. Every third party seller demands this. Hint: You don't have to sell all of your rooms through booking. This rule could destroy booking.com depending on how it is enforced, since hotels could then just use them as a free advertising platform. Number 3: Seems fair. Number 4: They've always done this. Number 5: They don't own any hotels AFAIK Number 6: What do they mean? All in all, it seems the regulators do not understand at all what they are regulating. After decades of online reservations being the norm, hotels should only blame themselves if they've become dependent on third parties such as booking.
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      How would you regulate them if at all?
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        The purpose of regulation should be to combat harmful business practices and not to try to destroy a company that grows too big for the tastes of EU politicians. Does Booking.com use their size to harm competitors in any harmful way? Not that I know. Do they abuse their customers or accommodation partners? Not that I know. Regulators should show some evidence before making hostile moves, it seems they are just acting on ideology and not in the interests of the customer. But EU rulers and their worshippers among the population do live in a kind of fantasy land of 300 page PDFs, while ignoring very tangible problems. Booking.com should of course have to make good on any promises or deals they make with guests and with hotels, which they seem to do. If there's one thing that regulators should take a look at, it is the practice of selling non-refundable hotel nights. Booking.com does it together with hotels who able such offers and the whole industry does it at a limited scale, and have always done it. But the way I see it, there is no reason that a hotel shouldn't be able to always refund any room if it is cancelled at least one month before the stay. You should always be able to find another occupant for the room within one month. The only reason hotels sell non-refundable rooms is with the hope of double dipping when somebody has mistakenly reserved it without paying notice that it was non-refundable. I can see no argument against mandating a one month free cancellation for all hotel bookings on land.
rightbyte 2y ago
> This is destroying business. Middle men like Hotels.com etc are destroying business by adding a hidden extra booking fee from the consumers.
- personomas 2y ago
  No DMA will and does destroy business.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    I am fine with that.
  - jeltz 2y ago
    But does it destroy any non-predatory businesses? If other people here are correct it should be trivial for Booking to comply since they are already almost compliant.
    - personomas 2y ago
      Yes. And it causes gazillions in legal costs for everyone.
- gruez 2y ago
  Would you rather be forced to scour a dozen hotel sites individually to find a place to stay? Arguably "Middle men like Hotels.com etc" are providing a valuable service by allowing consumers to comparison shop in one place. Unless you think such sites should be government funded, it's only fair that they charge a fee for their service.
  - allarm 2y ago
    > Would you rather be forced to scour a dozen hotel sites individually to find a place to stay? Yes.
    - 2y ago
sofixa 2y ago
> There's a reason the EU doesn't have many successful companies I'm sorry, what? What could possibly make you think that?
- personomas 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Two4 2y ago
  Yes, I'm going to have to see some evidence for a claim as wild as that.

jeltz 2y ago

So what are the concrete problems with the DMA? I do not know it well enough but as a EU citizen and small business owner I am generally very happy with other EU regulations.

deeth_starr_v 2y ago
I’m not sure you’ll get a good answer. They’ve been on HN for 9 years and have -3 karma lol
- personomas 2y ago
  Just because my opinions aren't popular, doesn't mean I'm not capable of giving good answers. Or you're the bandwagon guy who just likes who's most popular then??
belorn 2y ago
From the keypoints of the DMA, this change should require that: Booking.com can not prevent hotels from providing booking through other sites. booking.com can not prevent hotels from advertising special deals without giving booking.com a cut. booking.com must give hotels tools to independent verify advertisements that hotels are paying for. Booking.com must give hotels access to booking data in real time, and must provide export options for such data. Booking.com can not give booking.com owned hotels preference over other hotels. (not sure if there are such hotels). Booking.com can not compete with hotels using the hotels own booking data.
- com 2y ago
  This all sounds very good for open markets and capitalism. As a consumer I should benefit, and well-run hotels too, I suppose, if I were ever to stay in one.
  - varispeed 2y ago
    These regulations should have been done decades ago. Now these lead to corporations growing abnormally big with immense power to corrupt policymakers and help them create regulatory capture. It's great that EU sees some sense and does not give in to the temptation of easy money from big corporations.
- moi2388 2y ago
  All of that sounds very fair.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Number 1: Booking.com has never prevented hotels from providing booking through other sites. Number 2: Booking.com has always demanded that any room sold by them cannot be cheaper anywhere else. Every third party seller demands this. Hint: You don't have to sell all of your rooms through booking. This rule could destroy booking.com depending on how it is enforced, since hotels could then just use them as a free advertising platform. Number 3: Seems fair. Number 4: They've always done this. Number 5: They don't own any hotels AFAIK Number 6: What do they mean? All in all, it seems the regulators do not understand at all what they are regulating. After decades of online reservations being the norm, hotels should only blame themselves if they've become dependent on third parties such as booking.
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    How would you regulate them if at all?
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      The purpose of regulation should be to combat harmful business practices and not to try to destroy a company that grows too big for the tastes of EU politicians. Does Booking.com use their size to harm competitors in any harmful way? Not that I know. Do they abuse their customers or accommodation partners? Not that I know. Regulators should show some evidence before making hostile moves, it seems they are just acting on ideology and not in the interests of the customer. But EU rulers and their worshippers among the population do live in a kind of fantasy land of 300 page PDFs, while ignoring very tangible problems. Booking.com should of course have to make good on any promises or deals they make with guests and with hotels, which they seem to do. If there's one thing that regulators should take a look at, it is the practice of selling non-refundable hotel nights. Booking.com does it together with hotels who able such offers and the whole industry does it at a limited scale, and have always done it. But the way I see it, there is no reason that a hotel shouldn't be able to always refund any room if it is cancelled at least one month before the stay. You should always be able to find another occupant for the room within one month. The only reason hotels sell non-refundable rooms is with the hope of double dipping when somebody has mistakenly reserved it without paying notice that it was non-refundable. I can see no argument against mandating a one month free cancellation for all hotel bookings on land.

rightbyte 2y ago

> This is destroying business. Middle men like Hotels.com etc are destroying business by adding a hidden extra booking fee from the consumers.

personomas 2y ago
No DMA will and does destroy business.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  I am fine with that.
- jeltz 2y ago
  But does it destroy any non-predatory businesses? If other people here are correct it should be trivial for Booking to comply since they are already almost compliant.
  - personomas 2y ago
    Yes. And it causes gazillions in legal costs for everyone.
gruez 2y ago
Would you rather be forced to scour a dozen hotel sites individually to find a place to stay? Arguably "Middle men like Hotels.com etc" are providing a valuable service by allowing consumers to comparison shop in one place. Unless you think such sites should be government funded, it's only fair that they charge a fee for their service.
- allarm 2y ago
  > Would you rather be forced to scour a dozen hotel sites individually to find a place to stay? Yes.
  - 2y ago

sofixa 2y ago

> There's a reason the EU doesn't have many successful companies I'm sorry, what? What could possibly make you think that?

personomas 2y ago
[flagged]
Two4 2y ago
Yes, I'm going to have to see some evidence for a claim as wild as that.