Introduction
The Booking.com case study illustrates the evolution of digital regulation within the European Union. The platform has ceased to be a mere intermediary, evolving instead into a strategic piece of market infrastructure.
Readers will discover how the DMA and DSA acts are changing the rules of the game for tech giants. This text explains the transition from combating individual abuses to systemic oversight of so-called 'gatekeepers.'
You will learn why control over the interface now requires a new form of democratic accountability and the protection of economic freedom for smaller entities.
Booking.com as an Infrastructural Gateway to the Digital Market
Booking.com has fallen under the scope of DMA and DSA regulations because it has reached a scale that makes it a critical point of contact between businesses and customers. It holds the status of both a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) and a gatekeeper, shifting the regulator's approach from reactive to preventative.
The platform's power does not stem from owning hotels, but from controlling the interface. This is known as 'gateway power,' allowing it to dictate the visibility of offers and the flow of information.
A prime example is the ban on price parity clauses. Thanks to the DMA, hotels can offer better terms outside the platform without risking retaliation from Booking.com in the form of higher commissions.
The Shift from Ex Post Control to Systemic Ex Ante Oversight
Traditional antitrust law operated ex post, meaning it penalized harm after it had already occurred. This required years of litigation and proving a dominant position within a specific market.
The DMA introduces an ex ante logic. It establishes top-down rules of conduct for entities with gatekeeper status before abuses can occur. This approach is borrowed from the regulation of energy grids and telecommunications.
Rather than investigating every case individually, the law systemically protects the freedom of business users. This regulation aims to ensure market contestability and limit the influence of private code on economic liberty.
From Trade Secrets to Systemic Accountability
New reporting and auditing obligations are ending the era of total algorithmic secrecy. Booking.com must now provide descriptions of consumer profiling techniques and compliance reports.
Under the DSA, the platform is required to manage systemic risks, such as financial fraud or manipulative dark patterns. Responsibility has shifted from individual incidents to the organizational capacity to prevent threats.
The fight against information asymmetry is key. By granting independent researchers access to data, the inner workings of the 'Machine' become observable to both society and regulators.
Summary
Booking.com has evolved from an innovator into an infrastructural institution. Its success is so vast that the law must now protect the ability of users to bypass the platform.
The DMA and DSA regulations do not destroy innovation; rather, they 'constitutionalize' code to ensure that private architecture does not become a tool for arbitrary market planning.
However, the greatest challenge remains the issue of data. The true boundary of the Machine's power lies where information about our travels ceases to be marketing fuel and becomes currency in the game of state control and intelligence.
👤 About the book's author
Stijn Bronzwaer
NRC
Stijn Bronzwaer (born 1981 in Heerlen, Netherlands) is a Dutch investigative journalist and author specializing in technology, innovation, and corporate culture. He studied communication science at Radboud University and completed further journalistic studies at Utrecht University and the University of Amsterdam. In 2007, Bronzwaer joined the Dutch daily newspaper NRC, where he served across various editorial roles, including economics reporter, media editor, and deputy editor-in-chief from 2016 to 2019, during which time he co-founded the flagship daily podcast NRC Vandaag. Returning to reporting, he focused on technology, startups, and artificial intelligence. Alongside colleagues Merijn Rengers and Joris Kooiman, he co-authored the investigative bestseller De Machine (2021), chronicling the rise of Booking.com, which won the prestigious Dutch investigative journalism award De Loep. In 2026, the trio authored an unauthorized biography of fintech founder Ali Niknam.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Booking.com subject to DMA and DSA regulations, and what does this change in the regulator's approach?
Booking.com became subject to these regulations due to its immense scale, number of users, and its role as a key intermediary (gatekeeper) and a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP). This shifts the regulator's approach from reacting to specific abuses to imposing special organizational and competitive obligations resulting from the platform's inherent infrastructural role.
1. How does the DMA change the way Booking.com is regulated compared to traditional antitrust law?
2. The DMA introduces ex ante regulation, which sets rules of conduct for gatekeepers in advance, instead of requiring individual proof of harm in every antitrust case. Unlike traditional law, the DMA prohibits parity clauses and mandates, among other things, that travel service providers be granted access to the data they generate.
3. How do the new reporting and auditing obligations under the DMA and DSA change the oversight of Booking.com?
4. Booking.com must now submit compliance reports and audited descriptions of profiling techniques, shifting oversight from trade secrets to external regulatory accountability and dialogue with the Commission. Under the DSA, as a VLOP, the platform is obliged to identify and mitigate systemic risks and undergo independent audits, moving responsibility from individual incidents to organizational risk management.
5. How do DSA regulations affect access to Booking.com's data and limit the use of manipulative design techniques?
6. The Commission has sent requests for information to Booking.com regarding, among other things, methods for identifying and limiting financial fraud, such as fake accommodation offers. Furthermore, under the DSA, a ban has been introduced on the use of manipulative interface practices (dark patterns) that could nudge users toward choices that violate their autonomy.
7. How do DMA and DSA regulations affect the technological architecture and management of the Booking.com platform?
8. The DMA and DSA introduce meta-rules that limit the power of the platform's code, prohibiting certain forms of parity and requiring data flows to be opened for business users. They mandate the creation of transparency, audit, and systemic risk management procedures, which requires engineers and lawyers to implement new processes.
9. Why might the mere introduction of DMA/DSA regulations not be enough to bring about a real change in how the platform operates?
10. There is a risk of superficial formalization, where platforms meet documentation requirements but in practice maintain asymmetry through inconvenient interfaces or ranking systems. Additionally, large enterprises may optimize only measurable compliance indicators rather than the actual goals of the norm, using their technical potential to find functional substitutes for prohibited behaviors.
Why does gatekeeper status justify imposing restrictions on Booking.com that do not apply to ordinary enterprises?
Gatekeeper status means that the platform serves as a key point of contact between businesses and users and possesses structural power, which entails specific obligations. These restrictions are introduced a priori to prevent the blocking of the competitive process and to ensure that other market participants can exercise their economic freedom.
Why must a platform like Booking.com, which has brought many market benefits, now be restricted by public law?
The platform must be restricted by public law because its efficiency has transformed into an ability to impose access conditions on entities that have no alternative. It has become an institution of infrastructural importance, which creates obligations to prevent market foreclosure, the blocking of data mobility, and the abuse of information asymmetry.
