A US court has ruled in favour of Ryanair’s claims that Booking.com had violated the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Abuse Act and caused loss to the airline by featuring its fares without permission and against its wishes.
The Delaware Court jury ruled that Booking.com had done so with “intent to defraud”, and that Ryanair had suffered economic harm as a result.
The court also rejected counterclaims by Booking.com that Ryanair had defamed the booking platform and that the airline was engaged in unfair competition.
More: Ryanair chief dismisses package travel as ‘a distraction’
Expedia Group becomes Ryanair’s latest approved OTA
Ryanair welcomed the verdicts, with its chief executive Michael O’Leary hailing the outcome as “a great victory for low fare air travel”.
“We expect that this ruling will end the internet piracy and overcharging perpetrated on both airlines and other travel companies and consumers by the unlawful activity of online travel agency (OTA) pirates like Booking.com,” he said.
“It is unacceptable that global giants like Booking.com have been engaged in these practices for many years with the intent to defraud both Ryanair and consumers.
“Ryanair has fought to protect consumers and ensure that they have direct access to Ryanair’s low fares, and our low-price ancillary services without OTAs inserting themselves into this relationship in order to overcharge unsuspecting consumers who believe they are booking directly with Ryanair, but in fact are being duped into booking via these OTA pirates.”
O’Leary thanked the jury for its outcome, and said he hoped this would “see an end” to alleged screenscraping of its website.
“We hope these Delaware Court rulings will now see an end to OTA pirates screenscraping travel websites like Ryanair.com,” he added.
Booking.com said it was “disappointed” with the ruling.
“We are disappointed with the decision, with which we disagree,” said a spokesperson, who added: “We maintain that allowing customers to access and compare fares across the travel industry promotes consumer choice, and plan to appeal.”