Further readingGuides
A lower price on your hotel's website: what the law allows
In another article I wrote that since 2017, in Italy, you're allowed to cost less on your own site than on the portal. It's the sentence that generates more questions than any other, and they're always the same three: is that really so? how far can I go? and what happens if the portal notices?
This article answers those three. It doesn't explain whether you can — that much is settled — but how far, in what form, and what stays on you regardless.
One thing up front, which is also a way of reading the rest: I'm not a lawyer, I'm a digital consultant. This piece comes from the text of the law itself, which is public and takes two minutes to read. Every statement here is anchored to its source, so you can check it yourself or take it to someone qualified.
What the law actually says
"Any agreement is void by which a tourism and hospitality business undertakes not to offer to end customers, by any means and any instrument, prices, terms and any other condition that are better than those offered by the same business through third parties, regardless of the law governing the contract."
That is article 1, paragraph 166, of Law 124 of 4 August 2017, the annual competition law. In force since 29 August 2017 and unchanged since. (The wording above is my translation; the binding text is the Italian one.)
Three things in it matter more than the rest.
"Is void." The law doesn't impose a fine on anyone: it says the agreement produces no effect. It's nullity, enforced in the civil courts, and the provision identifies neither a supervisory authority nor an administrative penalty of its own.
"Any agreement", with "third parties". It names no platform: given its breadth, it's reasonable to read it as covering more than just the best-known portals. And it isn't only about price — it strikes at the undertaking not to offer better "prices, terms and any other condition".
"Regardless of the law governing the contract." The legislator expressly ruled out that choosing a foreign law could take the agreement out of nullity. A separate and more technical question remains: which court would have jurisdiction in a dispute. But the practical point is different — if the agreement is void, there's nothing to enforce as long as nobody is challenging you.
Four different layers, and only one concerns Monday's rates
Four things get tangled together on this subject.
| What it is | Who it applies to | What it does for you | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Italian law | paragraph 166: the agreement is void | any agreement, any channel, phone and front desk included | this is the one you use |
| Digital Markets Act | a gatekeeper can't stop you pricing differently on your own online channel | designated platforms only | extra protection on one channel |
| EU ruling, 2024 | parity clauses fall to be assessed under competition rules | the past, damages claims | nothing, for your rates |
| Competition authority commitments, 2024 | prices elsewhere must not feed the programmes | Italian properties | answers the most common fear |
On the Digital Markets Act: the European regulation requires a gatekeeper not to prevent business users from offering the same services at different prices or conditions through their own direct online sales channels. Booking.com was designated a gatekeeper by the European Commission on 13 May 2024, and the obligations became enforceable six months later, in mid-November 2024. It's the only OTA designated. Compared with the Italian rule it isn't simply "stronger": they're broader along different axes and they stack — the DMA covers the direct online channel, while paragraph 166 says "by any means and any instrument", so it reaches the telephone and the front desk too. There is one real difference, and it's in the consequences: the DMA carries fines of up to 10% of worldwide turnover, and it's enforced by the European Commission.
On the ruling: on 19 September 2024 the Court of Justice of the EU (case C-264/23) held that parity clauses are not "ancillary restraints" to platform agreements, and must therefore be assessed under EU competition rules. It did not declare them unlawful — worth stating plainly, because almost everyone writes the opposite: it opened the way to damages claims for the past. For Monday's rates, it changes nothing.
On that front there is a collective damages action brought by a Dutch foundation before the Amsterdam court, joined by more than fifteen thousand properties. It isn't an Italian class action, it involves a deduction from any award, and it concerns recovering the past: a different question from this article's, and if it interests you, your trade association is the right place to ask.
You don't have to tell anyone
It's the question I get most often, and the answer is short.
You don't have to notify the portal. You don't have to serve notice on anyone, you don't have to ask to renegotiate the contract, and you don't have to leave any channel. Nullity operates by itself: that agreement, if it's there, simply produces no effect. The rest of the contract stands — and that cuts both ways, as we'll see.
Since late 2024, ranking shouldn't depend on your prices elsewhere
This is the point almost nobody connects to the subject, and it's the one that unblocks most of the hoteliers who hesitate.
The real fear isn't a civil case: it's losing visibility. "If I go lower on my own site, will I be pushed down?"
On 19 December 2024 the Italian competition authority closed an investigation into the programmes Booking offers to Italian properties by accepting commitments. The platform undertook to ensure that prices charged by properties on online sales channels other than its own are not taken into account at any stage in the operation and promotion of the Preferred Partner and Preferred Partner Plus programmes and of the sponsored discount, and to increase transparency towards properties. There was no finding of any infringement: the case closed because the commitments were made binding.
In plain terms: the price you set on your own site should no longer affect access to those programmes, or the visibility that comes with them.
One recent fact is worth adding, in the conditional the authority itself uses: on 22 April 2026 it opened a new investigation into the same platform over unfair commercial practices, on the hypothesis that Preferred Partner badges are presented as a quality marker while selection also reflects the commission a property pays. The case is ongoing and nothing has been established. But it's one more reason not to build your commercial strategy on a badge.
How far to go: the sum before the rate sheet
Here the law ends and the trade begins. The rule fits on one line:
The maximum sustainable difference is the commission you save, minus what it costs you to sell on your own.
If commission runs in the 15–20% range and your direct channel costs you a share of that between booking engine, payment processing and campaigns, what's left is the margin you can play with — not the whole commission.
| If you differentiate by | What it says to the guest | What's left for you |
|---|---|---|
| 3–5% | barely noticeable, rarely moves the decision | almost all the saving |
| 8–10% | the difference reads at a glance | about half; the rest covers the channel |
| over 15% | you risk eroding the margin | little or nothing |
The exact number depends on your real average commission, not the headline one: the calculator does the sum in thirty seconds, without asking for your email.
Public discount or closed rate: the choice that changes everything
The form matters as much as the figure, and there are four.
| Form | How it works | When it makes sense |
|---|---|---|
| Lower direct rate | public price, differentiated on the engine | simple message, and you have margin |
| Reserved rate | visible after free registration | you want the difference and the contact |
| Expiring code | in newsletters, on site, on social | filling specific gaps without touching the rate sheet |
| Value at the same price | flexible check-in, better room, easier cancellation | tight margin |
One clarification worth the whole section: these aren't loopholes. Chains have used reserved rates for years to build a direct relationship with the guest, not to get around a ban — which in Italy, as we've seen, doesn't exist. What is a workaround elsewhere is simply a pricing decision here.
Before blaming the law
Plenty of properties are convinced they can't differentiate when in fact they're aligning themselves. Before touching any rate, check:
- The promotions running on the portal. Loyalty programmes, mobile rates, country rates, seasonal promos, last minute: they stack, and often nobody at the property remembers switching them all on.
- The channel manager's derivation rules. This is the most frequent case by far: the direct rate is derived automatically from the distributed one, so you're reintroducing parity yourself.
- The price the guest actually sees, on two real dates, in a private window, from a phone — not the one you see in your system. The full test is in the seven checks.
- Where the better condition is written. If it's in the footer or on an "Offers" page, for the guest it doesn't exist: it belongs on the room page, next to the price.
- Your wholesale arrangements. Net rates handed to resellers can resurface on third-party portals at prices your own site doesn't beat. The law voids the parity agreement, not distribution disorder.
What the law doesn't give you
An article that only said "you're free" would be incomplete, and for some readers harmful. Five points, without alarm.
Commission is still owed. Nullity strikes only the parity clause — Italian civil law deals precisely with the nullity of a single clause, and the rest of the contract survives. It doesn't legitimise withholding commission already earned, nor unilateral termination.
You have no right to be listed. No rule obliges a portal to keep you in its catalogue or to give you any particular visibility. The competition authority's commitments concern the link between price and programmes; the DMA's protections concern only the designated operator.
The portal can discount out of its own margin. If it reduces its commission to match you, your direct price still looks aligned in the window. That isn't a parity agreement and there's nothing to enforce — but that alignment discount shouldn't be applied without your consent: it's worth checking in the extranet whether consent appears to have been given.
Mind how you word the price. "Best price guaranteed" is a commitment to the consumer, not a slogan: if it isn't true at every moment on every channel, it's challengeable. The same goes for a direct price that only looks lower because it excludes tourist tax, cleaning or mandatory supplements. The safe formula is "Book here and get: [concrete condition]", not a generic guarantee.
Calling people who have already booked to get them to cancel and rebook direct is a different matter entirely. It has nothing to do with your rate sheet and none of the above covers it.
One last point on who is protected: the law refers to a "tourism and hospitality business". Someone running a short-term let on a non-professional basis is unlikely to fall within it.
If the portal reacts
In order: the platform's internal complaint system — intermediation platforms are required under European regulation to operate a complaint-handling system, to give reasons for unilateral changes and suspensions, and to name mediators — then the mediation set out in the terms, then a report to the national competition authority, and, for the designated gatekeeper only, the European Commission. Civil litigation is the last option, and for an average property it's rarely the road.
And one thing that costs ten minutes a month: keep screenshots of prices, the version of your contract, and your commission statements. It's the only thing that helps if one day you have to demonstrate something.
Where to start
The picture is this: in Italy there's nothing to get around. The freedom has been there since 2017, and it's broader than almost anyone believes — it covers price, but also terms and any other condition, on any channel. What's usually missing isn't permission: it's a concrete reason to book with you, written where the person is deciding.
If there's a clause in your contract that worries you, the text should be read by someone who does that for a living: what's here is the picture, not advice on your case. But the picture is enough to decide whether to open up your rates on Monday morning.
If you want to work out where your direct channel is losing what the law lets you keep, the digital check-up costs €1,250, and 50% comes off the quote if we go ahead with the work. Otherwise write to me: tell me the difference today between your price and the one on the portal, and I'll tell you whether the problem is the rate or where you're communicating it.