Major Travel Brands Slammed for Misleading Price Claims
The UK's advertising watchdog has taken decisive action against several travel industry giants, banning advertisements for Booking.com, Accor, Travelodge, and Hilton for misleading consumers about the availability of rooms at their cheapest advertised rates.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that all four companies used ‘from’ price claims for hotel rooms that overstated how many rooms were actually available at the advertised rate. The regulator found that because only a small proportion of rooms were available at these prices across a range of dates, the advertisements were inherently misleading.
The Specific Cases Under Scrutiny
In the case of Booking.com, an ad from May 6 promoted ‘Places to stay in Sheffield’ with a ‘Best Price Guarantee,’ specifically highlighting the ‘easyHotel Sheffield City Centre From £28.’ Booking.com defended itself by stating that the dates and prices were ‘dynamically chosen’ by Google from data it provided, meaning they could vary per user. The company believed the displayed information was accurate.
However, the ASA countered that the data provided by Booking.com showed only seven bookings were made at the easyHotel for the advertised price in the entire month of May. The watchdog stated it did not receive sufficient information, such as the number of dates rooms were available for £28, to substantiate the ‘From £28’ claim.
For Accor, an advertisement for £27 rooms at its Ibis Budget Birmingham Centre was found to be available for only a single night's stay on July 30. The ASA concluded this was ‘not a true reflection of the price most consumers could expect to pay.’
The rulings against Travelodge concerned ads for ‘Travelodge Nottingham Riverside From £25’ and ‘Travelodge Swansea M4 From £21’. The ASA determined that consumers would reasonably expect a significant proportion of rooms to be available at these prices. In reality, the advertised prices were only available for a night’s stay on May 18.
Regarding Hilton, the ASA stated it had not seen sufficient evidence to prove that a significant proportion of rooms were available at the advertised prices of £68 at Hampton by Hilton Hamilton Park or £59 at Hampton by Hilton Newcastle.
Industry and Regulatory Reaction
Emily Henwood, ASA Operations Manager, issued a clear statement: ‘Advertised prices must match what’s really available. If only a few rooms are actually offered at the price shown, or it only applies to a specific date, then this information must be made clear to avoid misleading people. Otherwise, it’s unfair to anyone trying to find a good deal or make informed choices about where to book.’
The consumer group Which? welcomed the ASA's action. Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection Policy at Which?, described the situation as ‘completely unacceptable.’
‘It’s completely unacceptable for hotels to mislead customers with too-good-to-be-true sales, where they reel in consumers with the promise of a great deal, only for it to be almost impossible to make a booking at the bargain rate,’ Davies said. ‘This should send a message to other businesses that they must display prices accurately and ensure they aren’t misleading customers.’
This ruling underscores a significant crackdown on misleading hotel prices and serves as a stark warning to the entire hospitality and online travel sector about the importance of transparent consumer protection in advertising.
