“Golden Week” is approaching, and disputes about hotel bookings have left some consumers feeling frustrated. The hashtag #Forced Cancellation of October 11 Orders Leads to Tripled Room Rates# recently sparked widespread discussions on social media. Some hotels have been accused of “price gouging,” with the original rate of 160 yuan per night skyrocketing to over 600 yuan.
Many netizens have reported encountering issues where their hotel reservations for the October 11 holiday were unilaterally canceled, prompting calls for measures to address such arbitrary price hikes.
Recently, China Central Television (CCTV) reported that on September 16, Ms. Huang from Changsha, Hunan, booked a luxury queen bed room at the Huanman Hotel on Yuhou Street in Beihu District of Chenzhou City through a platform for a stay on October 3, priced at 160 yuan per night. However, on September 19, the platform informed her that the order needed to be canceled due to a “pricing error” by the hotel. Despite Huang’s refusal, citing that she had already purchased her travel tickets and local hotels were generally raising prices, her order was unilaterally canceled the next day.
On the night of September 26, according to information provided by Ms. Huang, she found that through the platform, the luxury queen bed room she had reserved was still available at the hotel, but the price had increased to over 600 yuan.
Ms. Huang’s experience in Changsha is not an isolated case. Ms. Li from Suzhou, Jiangsu, encountered a similar situation where her order was canceled after making a payment through a platform.
On September 14 this year, she paid about 516 yuan through a platform for a hotel room reservation from October 1 to 4. However, within minutes, the order was canceled. Upon inquiry, Li found that the hotel still had the same room type. When she tried to rebook, the room rate for three days had surged from over 500 yuan to 927 yuan. The customer service attributed this to “insufficient hotel room availability leading to booking failure” and offered Li a compensation of 50 yuan. Li believed that the explanation provided by the platform was weak, and the compensation offered could not offset the price difference.
An investigation revealed that when contacting the implicated hotel about the canceled order, the staff stated that the price at the time of sale had not been adjusted, involving more than forty rooms. The staff member mentioned that several lower-priced rooms were sold, and the responsibility should fall on the online platform.
Ms. Huang indicated that the platform’s customer service later contacted her, stating that they could accept a price difference higher than 160 yuan.
Lawyer Wang Duo from the Liaoning Jingque Law Firm analyzed the unilateral cancellations of low-priced orders by some platforms or hotels, stating that from a legal perspective, once consumers place and successfully pay for an order through a platform, a valid contractual relationship is formed between the platform or hotel. According to China’s Civil Code, canceling orders unilaterally for reasons such as “pricing errors” or “insufficient room availability” constitutes fundamental breach of contract. Consumers have the right to demand to stay as originally booked or request compensation for losses.
If a hotel or platform knowingly raises prices during the Golden Week period, attracts consumers with lower prices initially, and then unilaterally cancels, it may be deemed as “false advertising” or “fraud.”
Wang Duo also pointed out that in reality, consumers face challenges in seeking justice against hotels or platforms’ breaches of contract: platforms are usually in a position of strength, and it is difficult to identify their jurisdiction. Additionally, hotels are typically located in remote areas, making the process of gathering evidence and filing complaints fraught with practical difficulties.