Sign in with Microsoft

Trivago – a price comparison website (and that should ring loud alarm bells in its own right) has been found guilty of misleading consumers on the so-called ‘best’ hotel deals.

Justice Mark Moshinsky ruled that Trivago knowingly broke many sections of Australian Consumer Law. It claimed that it offered the cheapest or best prices, all the while presenting results based on how much money it would make out of commissions, overrides, advertising dollars, back-room deals and click-throughs (regardless of whether the consumer booked).

This revealing case study has since been ‘forcibly’ removed!

Trivago also displayed a red strike-through text indicating it was the best price when it was not.

ACCC chair Rod Sims said the conduct of Trivago was

“Particularly egregious (staggeringly bad; shocking; obviously wrong and wrong beyond any reasonable degree…)”. The court’s decision “sends a strong message to comparison websites and search engines that if ranking or ordering of results is based or influenced by advertising, they should be upfront and clear with consumers about this so that consumers are not misled”.

Damages, fines and refunds that could amount to many millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars are yet to be determined. The base penalty for misleading and deceptive conduct is up to $1.1m per breach and up to $10m in fines for each offence under the Australian Consumer Law.

Trivago N.V. (NASDAQ TRVG), is a German technology company specialising in internet-related services and products in the hotel, lodging and metasearch fields. The American travel company Expedia Group owns most of the company’s stock. A large percentage of its revenue comes from selling your private personal ‘meta’ data to advertisers and social media. The majority of its expenditure is marketing! Talk about rinse and repeat!

Trivago’s shareprice has tanked on the annnouncement

Trivago has been in trouble many times in many countries for deceptive and misleading conduct. This includes:

  • Selling rooms or room types that are not available at the time of booking (forcing later on the spot room upgrades at extra cost)
  • Downgrading websites competitive to its owner Expedia and directing searches to it.
  • Return false hotel gradings in favour of advertisers and commission overrides
  • Exquisitely ‘wordsmithing’ its website and advertisements to gloss over the fact that different room types have different prices and may not be available, “We just compare, it’s your choice.”
  • Hosting a considerable percentage of fake reviews – ‘Reviews you can trust.’

That a European based company which must conform to the GDPR EU privacy rules has such court actions and class actions is highly irregular.

It’s Terms, and privacy policy are lengthy and tedious. They studiously avoid the use of the word ‘sell’ preferring ‘transfer’ or ‘share’ and copious mention of its ‘third parties’ passing all responsibility for privacy to them.

“This information may also be shared with third parties, such as ad networks.”

Its profit model also allows for a huge TV and social media advertising budget fronted in the UK and here by Aussie actress Gabrielle Miller.

Price comparison websites (PCW)

Putting Trivago to one side for a moment, almost all price comparison websites would be out of business if they operated transparently. Simply put PCWs aggregate commonly available web prices from some, not all vendor sites, and present these as ‘best deals’.

Some vendors agree to pay commission overrides over the standard amount – and get preference. In travel, the standard commission is around 10%. Trivago is alleged to have asked for up to 40% as a mix of standard commission, overrides, advertising subsidies, click-through fees and paid preferential ratings. As a consumer, you are paying for that – it is not the best deal.

In June 2019, we exposed the Truth about energy price comparison websites. The ACCC found, without exception, that all price comparison websites do not compare all available suppliers and prices.

In fact, they compare very few suppliers, especially where geographical locations can make a huge difference. They steer you to suppliers they make the most money from. Worse still they base your comparison on a previous ‘bill’ that likely was terrible in the first place, e.g. easy to better.

 One site, iSelect only compared 11 out of 22 Sydney electricity retailers – less than a quarter of the available plans and ignored seniors and other discount plans. It also found collusion between energy retailers by constructing ‘incomparable’ special offers for PCWs that were, in fact, more expensive after the initial ‘generous’ discount period expired or that could be achieved by going direct to the supplier.

GadgetGuy’s take:

The gutsy answer is to legislate fair price comparison methodology and if it puts PCWs including Trivago out of business so be it.

PCWs are yet another embodiment of the wild, wild, west of the internet. Apart from the ACCC’s ACL teeth, there is no legislation mandating fair business behaviour. If there was then government agencies could come down like a tonne of bricks and cancel business licenses, put directors in jail for cartel and collusion, order massive refunds for rip-offs etc.