Let's take a look at incentives. Booking.com has an incentive to cancel. The hotel itself has an incentive to cancel. The laws in place don't prevent this, especially when some contractual fine print is involved.
Will this public case result in flood of people away from booking.com? Probably not.
This is just a simple abuse of power, most easily identified by the question: "What are you going to do about it?"
It seems the play is to tell the world. Congrats to this lady for getting her money/booking back.
They're terrible, but according to the article the hotel requested the cancellation, and now booking.com has reinstated the booking and apparently paying the difference... seems like they're "the good side" here (or, paying to avoid the bad publicity).
> The company says the cancellation was approved under its standard policy permitting properties to void bookings in "rare cases where a property identifies a clear rate error." Following Go Public's questions, Booking.com told Mann it would honour her original booking and cover the price difference — allowing her to keep the same four bedroom unit at no additional cost.
Sounds like booking.com made a mistake in applying the wrong policy, and is trying to cover up for it instead of admitting their liability.
They're paying out to cut back on the negative the media attention.
The underlying problem, that hotels are capable of canceling bookings so they can ask for extortionate rates when events nearby take place, still remains.
I'm not sure whose fault this is, really. The person buying the reservation knew this deal was too good to be true, the hotel should've fixed their prices if they want to charge 12k extra for a weekend, and booking should probably kick hotels that do this off their website.
Booking.com is an absolute hell site for various reasons, but I'm sure the same conflict would've happened had the room been booked through the hotel's website.
Right! This is fundamentally the risk of being a broker: You think you will have X available for $Y, sell it, only to discover that X will cost you $Y + Z.
Without that risk you’re not functioning as a broker and shouldn’t be rewarded as one.
I know it's not a popular opinion but at this point I think anyone who books through a 3rd party basically gets what they deserve. There are no end to horror stories here and with the modern internet there's no reason to use them. In 2002 it was a different story. It may not have prevented this situation but the 3rd party bookers take a cut from the provider and offer you absolutely nothing in return. Just book direct.
> When Mann booked the accommodations, Formula One organizers hadn't locked in the exact race dates. So she covered her bases — reserving the same four-bedroom unit for two possible weekends in May 2026, both with free cancellation.
> Once the official dates were announced, she cancelled the extra booking, in line with Booking.com rules.
Let's be real here. Booking.com is not the only side stretching the terms of service to the limit to extract maximum value. This speculative booking and cancellation also drives costs up for other consumers who book reservations with honest intent by pulling a bunch of units off the market. It's hard to blame Booking.com for wanting to stick it to her.
Let's take a look at incentives. Booking.com has an incentive to cancel. The hotel itself has an incentive to cancel. The laws in place don't prevent this, especially when some contractual fine print is involved.
Will this public case result in flood of people away from booking.com? Probably not.
This is just a simple abuse of power, most easily identified by the question: "What are you going to do about it?"
It seems the play is to tell the world. Congrats to this lady for getting her money/booking back.
Spread the word: Never use booking.com (or other online travel agencies)
You can find a list of other companies owned by Booking Holdings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booking_Holdings
Priceline, Agoda, Rentalcars.com, Kayak, OpenTable, Rocketmiles, FareHarbor, HotelsCombined, Cheapflights, momondo
They're terrible, but according to the article the hotel requested the cancellation, and now booking.com has reinstated the booking and apparently paying the difference... seems like they're "the good side" here (or, paying to avoid the bad publicity).
Eugh, I feel dirty defending them.
Yeah this is common. If they have advance info of an event, they price it up. If you have advance info, they screw you over when they find out.
I had this on Airbnb.
> The company says the cancellation was approved under its standard policy permitting properties to void bookings in "rare cases where a property identifies a clear rate error." Following Go Public's questions, Booking.com told Mann it would honour her original booking and cover the price difference — allowing her to keep the same four bedroom unit at no additional cost.
Sounds like booking.com made a mistake in applying the wrong policy, and is trying to cover up for it instead of admitting their liability.
They're paying out to cut back on the negative the media attention.
The underlying problem, that hotels are capable of canceling bookings so they can ask for extortionate rates when events nearby take place, still remains.
I'm not sure whose fault this is, really. The person buying the reservation knew this deal was too good to be true, the hotel should've fixed their prices if they want to charge 12k extra for a weekend, and booking should probably kick hotels that do this off their website.
Booking.com is an absolute hell site for various reasons, but I'm sure the same conflict would've happened had the room been booked through the hotel's website.
Right! This is fundamentally the risk of being a broker: You think you will have X available for $Y, sell it, only to discover that X will cost you $Y + Z.
Without that risk you’re not functioning as a broker and shouldn’t be rewarded as one.
I know it's not a popular opinion but at this point I think anyone who books through a 3rd party basically gets what they deserve. There are no end to horror stories here and with the modern internet there's no reason to use them. In 2002 it was a different story. It may not have prevented this situation but the 3rd party bookers take a cut from the provider and offer you absolutely nothing in return. Just book direct.
> When Mann booked the accommodations, Formula One organizers hadn't locked in the exact race dates. So she covered her bases — reserving the same four-bedroom unit for two possible weekends in May 2026, both with free cancellation.
> Once the official dates were announced, she cancelled the extra booking, in line with Booking.com rules.
Let's be real here. Booking.com is not the only side stretching the terms of service to the limit to extract maximum value. This speculative booking and cancellation also drives costs up for other consumers who book reservations with honest intent by pulling a bunch of units off the market. It's hard to blame Booking.com for wanting to stick it to her.
I wonder what fraction of hotel income comes from peak times like this.