On September 19th, four mainland Chinese travel platforms’ operating companies were investigated, including Meituan Hotel Travel, Fliggy, Tongcheng Travel, and Tujia. Sources revealed that the investigation involved issues such as hotel payment-based bidding rankings, requesting merchants to provide the lowest price across the network, and platform intervention in pricing.
According to reports from Chinese media, the companies involved in the investigation are Beijing Quick Information Technology Co., Hangzhou Taomei Air Service Co., Tongcheng Network Technology Co., and Tujia Online Information Technology (Tianjin) Co. The related platforms are Meituan Hotel Travel, Fliggy, Tongcheng Travel, and Tujia. The four companies were accused of engaging in alleged illegal activities, but specific details were not disclosed.
Meituan Hotel Travel, Fliggy, and Tongcheng Travel all offer booking services for hotels, flights, and other travel-related activities, while Tujia focuses mainly on homestays and short-term rentals. Meituan Hotel Travel is a subsidiary of Meituan, known for its food delivery and lifestyle services; Fliggy is under the e-commerce conglomerate Alibaba; and Tujia and Tongcheng have capital relationships with the online travel company Ctrip Group in mainland China.
According to Economic Observer, investigators had been stationed in the four companies since April this year, covering aspects such as algorithms, marketing, legal affairs, and demanding the submission of relevant data from the businesses.
The investigation reportedly focused on the hotel accommodation sector, including issues such as bidding rankings for traffic display, requesting merchants to sell at the lowest price across the network, and depriving merchants of pricing autonomy.
Several hotel and homestay operators have stated that each platform categorizes accommodations, with different levels corresponding to varying commission benefits and traffic resources.
A merchant operating multiple homestays in Guangxi, Fujian, and other areas mentioned that the practices of each platform are generally similar: the higher the merchant’s level, the more traffic they receive, and the main promotional resources tend to be skewed towards exclusive partner merchants.
The merchant explained that hotel room listings require competitive bidding for better display positions, with higher bids ranking higher. After the order is completed, the merchant also needs to pay a commission to the platform. The combined costs of bidding displays and platform commissions account for around 20% of the room rate.
Several operators pointed out that hotels have less capability to attract customers compared to online travel platforms. While platforms can generate orders, the cost of orders is also higher, especially due to intense low-price competition in the hotel accommodation industry this year.
Following the announcement of the investigation, Meituan, Fliggy, Tongcheng, and Tujia have all stated that they will cooperate with the investigation. Tongcheng and Tujia also claim that their operations are currently normal.
None of the four platforms clarified whether they require hotels to provide the lowest price across the network, nor did they individually address issues such as payment-based bidding rankings, traffic distribution based on merchant levels, or intervention in hotel pricing.
Price differences on mainland Chinese online travel platforms have long been a subject of complaints. Previously, consumers discovered that when querying the same hotel at the same time, the price displayed for Fliggy’s basic member account was 459 yuan, while the advanced member account showed 504.77 yuan, representing a roughly 10% increase.
Some netizens also mentioned instances where prices suddenly increased when they were about to make payments. One user shared that the price for the same flight itinerary rose from 2300 yuan one night to 4000 yuan the next day.