Booking, Uber, delivery platforms, or central reservation systems… these players in the hospitality and catering industries have become indispensable. While they offer visibility and a steady stream of customers, they also impose a complex reality : strong economic dependence and a legal imbalance.
I. How to Respond to a Potentially Abusive Practice?
1. The Actual Cost of Intermediation
A matching platform provides visibility and payment management; in return, it collects a commission that can reach up to 30% (excluding fees). For a €40 order, a restaurant might only receive €30 before even settling its fixed costs (rent, salaries).
2. The Prohibition of the Abuse of a Dominant Position
In competition law, being a market leader is not illegal. What is prohibited is the abuse of that position. A market share of 50% is a strong indicator, but authorities primarily analyze the degree of dependence : if you cannot survive without a specific hospitality or catering platform, that platform holds a position of strength, at which point it may begin to abuse it.
In the hospitality and catering sector, platforms often benefit from a powerful network effect. The more customers they attract, the more establishments feel compelled to be listed. This can create a dependency for professionals, making it difficult for new competitors to enter the market.
In the hotel sector, Online Travel Agencies (OTAs) long utilized two types of clauses to control pricing:
- “Wide” Rate Parity Clause: This was the most restrictive. It forced the hotelier to offer the price indicated on the platform across all channels. The hotel could not offer a lower rate on its own website or on any competing platform. If a room was listed at €110 on one platform, it had to be €110 everywhere else. This effectively stifled competition as the hotelier could not negotiate with other platforms.
- “Narrow” Rate Parity Clause: This allowed the hotelier to offer lower prices on competing platforms, but not on their own website. Thus, the hotelier had to maintain price parity between their direct site and the OTA. The objective was to prevent the hotelier from diverting the customer from the platform to direct sales by offering a more attractive rate at home.
The 2015 “Macron Law” had already banned wide parity, and by a decision on September 19, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—leveraging new digital market regulations—also condemned the use of narrow rate parity clauses. Today, an establishment must remain entirely free to set its rates across all distribution channels, including its own website.
Visibility often depends on an algorithm, a computer program that ranks establishments in search results. However, moving from the first page to the third can lead to an immediate drop in bookings. If a platform conditions your visibility on an accepted commission rate or membership in expensive programs, it transforms the algorithm into a tool of economic pressure. For example, Booking partly conditions a hotel’s visibility on its level of commercial commitment (standard commission averages 15% in Europe, “Preferred Partner” program commissions are around 17% to 18% for better visibility, plus additional visibility “boosts”). The more an establishment accepts a higher commission, the better its visibility on the site.
3. Identifying Indicators of Illegality
The first step is to step back and assess : are there genuine alternatives to the platform, the franchise agreement, or the hotel management contract? What percentage of your turnover depends on it? Can you develop direct sales? Does the contract restrict your freedom to set prices (even without profit) or to communicate with your customers? These simple questions help measure the degree of dependence.
Next, observe the concrete effects of the practices in question. A sudden drop in visibility after refusing new terms, a unilateral contract modification, or less favorable treatment than comparable establishments are all red flags. In competition law, it is the actual effects on the business that matter.
Finally, certain clauses relating to service or delivery fees in addition to the commission can produce a significant economic impact.
4. Available Remedies and Claims for Damages
Before taking any formal action, it is recommended to consult a lawyer specialized in commercial law or competition law. They can assess the market position of the platform, the franchise, or the management contract, identify potentially unfair clauses, and evaluate whether the situation creates a significant imbalance. In some cases, a lawyer’s letter reminding the party of the applicable rules and highlighting the imbalance may be enough to open negotiations or change the practice.
If no amicable solution is found, it is possible to refer the matter to the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la concurrence) and/or the European Commission. These authorities can investigate, examine contracts, and demand modifications to restore a competitive balance. They can also impose fines of up to 10% of the concerned company’s total worldwide turnover.
In parallel, a report can be sent to the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF). This administrative authority is empowered to open an investigation, issue a formal notice to the company, and, if necessary, pronounce administrative sanctions and injunctions aimed at ceasing the disputed practices. This was notably the case for Booking, which was enjoined by the DGCCRF on July 10, 2025, to correct certain clauses considered restrictive to competition, such as the narrow rate parity clause.
Legal action can be brought before the Economic Activities Court to obtain the annulment of an unfair clause or compensation for financial loss. In France, the Minister of the Economy can also intervene and ask the judge to apply sanctions, with fines reaching up to five million euros, 5% of turnover, or triple the sums unduly received.
II. Franchise and Hotel Management Contracts: How to Avoid “Abuse of Dominant Position” Actions
For international hotel groups like Marriott International, Accor, or Hilton Worldwide, structuring their contracts with hotel owners is crucial. The power of these brands requires particular vigilance to ensure that contracts are not perceived as creating a “significant imbalance,” which could lead to legal action.
Securing Franchise and Hotel Management Models
It is essential to secure the models of franchise and hotel management contracts to avoid any allegations of abuse of a dominant position:
- Regarding Franchise Agreements: The hotelier remains independent; they own their establishment and operate the hotel under the group’s brand, benefiting from international reputation and tools (marketing, IT), and centralized reservation systems. In exchange, they pay royalties, generally including an entry fee that varies by brand, room count, and location (e.g., from €30,000 to €120,000 for the Accor group), plus 2% to 5% in fees, with an additional 1% to 3% for marketing and distribution costs. The group’s legal security here rests on demonstrating the genuine added value of the services provided.
- Regarding Hotel Management Agreements: The hotel owner hires a management company or a hotel group to handle the daily operations of the establishment. The manager’s remuneration is often based on turnover (2% to 4%) and on the Gross Operating Profit (GOP) (8% to 12%), according to the annual reports of groups like Hilton, Marriott, or Accor.
The Property Improvement Plan (PIP) is indispensable for maintaining brand standards but represents an investment of several million euros for the hotelier. Since these contracts are long-term (5, 10, or 15 years), a requirement for works deemed disproportionate to the actual profitability of the establishment could be classified as an abuse of economic dependence. It would be beneficial for the hotel group to integrate flexibility clauses or consult with the hotelier to ensure the renovation plan does not become an undue burden.