The State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints. In the second half of 2025, Trip.com had already been summoned for talks by market regulatory authorities in multiple locations.
On January 14, according to a message posted on the website of the State Administration for Market Regulation, the regulator, based on preliminary verifications and in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, has opened an investigation into Trip.com Group Limited for suspected abuse of its dominant market position to engage in monopolistic practices.
This立案调查 by the State Administration for Market Regulation did not come out of the blue; it was conducted based on prior inspections and in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. The investigation primarily focuses on Trip.com Group's business conduct within its hotel operations, especially suspected abuses of its market dominance. As a leading enterprise in the online travel industry, Trip.com Group holds a significant market share in both hotel bookings and flight ticket agency services.
Previously, according to media reports, a large number of merchants have accused platforms like Trip.com of controlling them with unreasonable terms.
"We truly feel like we are working for the platform now; our pricing power has been completely taken away," said Zhong Yang, manager of a branded hotel near Wutai Mountain in Shanxi. After discovering the issue, Zhong Yang filed complaints. While Meituan would often revert the changes or compensate for price differences, Trip.com, despite sometimes offering immediate compensation, would later penalize him for breach of contract. His appeal remained unresolved for three months.
What infuriates merchants even more is the extreme difficulty in deactivating the "Price Adjustment Assistant" function. Dai Yun, a homestay owner in Zhejiang, revealed that the bottom-line prices they set are frequently breached. Lower prices hurt profits, while higher prices deter customers, leaving them in a dilemma. The manager of a budget hotel in Haikou stated that she had to apply to close the function over ten times repeatedly, stuck in a cycle of "application-rejection-reapplication-rejection." Even upon successful deactivation, the account manager would often reactivate the function the very next day.
Wan Jue, a special researcher at the E-Commerce Research Center of Wangjing She and a registered foreign lawyer at Hong Kong's Ling Yong Shan Law Firm, stated that if Trip.com uses its market dominance to force price adjustments, it could constitute an "abuse of market dominance" under the Anti-Monopoly Law.
Trip.com's "pick one" or de facto exclusive cooperation clauses are also a focal point of the investigation. Merchants with Trip.com's "Special Badge" might be required not to list on competing platforms (like Meituan), while commission rates remain high. In December 2025, the Yunnan Provincial Tourism Homestay Association announced it would initiate anti-monopoly rights protection work against unfair competition by OTAs, explicitly pointing out complaints about Trip.com enforcing "pick one"霸王条款, among other issues.
The announcement mentioned that in recent years, the association has received numerous complaints from members, reporting that OTA platforms like Trip.com exploit their market dominance to enforce "pick one" policies, unilaterally raise commissions, set unfair trading conditions, and throttle traffic. These actions severely infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of operators and undermine fair market competition秩序.
The Huangshan Huizhou Homestay Association has also mobilized its member units to collect and organize evidence of online travel platform companies suspected of violating the Anti-Monopoly Law. These complaints suggest that Trip.com's market dominance may be used to restrict merchants from choosing other platforms, thereby further consolidating its monopoly position.
According to estimates by Bocom International, in 2024, Trip.com accounted for 56% of the Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) in the hotel and travel market, with Tongcheng Travel holding second place at 13%. Combined, these two platforms occupy nearly 70% of the domestic OTA market share.
This "one dominant player" structure did not emerge from fair competition but was built through capital mergers and acquisitions and rule-based hegemony. Currently, Trip.com's business covers over 1.2 million international hotels in more than 200 countries and regions, as well as 750,000 hotel resources in over 600 domestic cities. Small and medium-sized homestay operators find it nearly impossible to secure a stable stream of guests without relying on the Trip.com platform.
Furthermore, according to a report by Southern Metropolis Daily, the explicit base commission rate standard for individual OTA platforms like Trip.com is approximately 10% to 15%. However, to obtain better visibility and exposure on these major OTA platforms—such as achieving a higher ranking (e.g., top three pages or homepage) during specific periods like holidays, or purchasing internal advertising slots—merchants often need to pay additional隐性费用.
When these hidden costs are added up, the total commission expenditure can approach 40%, effectively doubling the explicit commission rate. Yet, merchants feel compelled to pay these extra fees to the platform to enhance their exposure.
Despite many hotel merchants facing declining profits, Trip.com's performance has continued to improve over the past two years. In 2024, Trip.com achieved a net profit of 17.2 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 72%, with 40% of its revenue coming from hotel booking services. However, merchants generally report that, under the algorithmic control of platforms like Trip.com, their profit situation is far from optimistic.
The State Administration for Market Regulation's decision to initiate a formal investigation is not an isolated incident but a response to prior local regulatory interviews and industry complaints. In the second half of 2025, Trip.com had already been summoned for talks by market regulatory authorities in multiple locations.
On August 5, the Guizhou Provincial Market Supervision Administration collectively interviewed five platforms, including Trip.com, Tongcheng Travel, Meituan, and Fliggy, directly addressing potential issues like "pick one" policies, using technical means to interfere with merchant pricing, price fraud, and abuse of market dominance. The authorities demanded that the platforms conduct immediate self-inspections and corrections.
On September 17, the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration, in accordance with the law, conducted an administrative interview with the operating entity of Ctrip (Trip.com's Chinese brand), focusing on issues such as Trip.com forcibly modifying hotel prices through its "Price Adjustment Assistant" function and obstructing its cancellation. The administration issued a "Rectification Order." The investigation concluded that Trip.com had violated the E-Commerce Law and the Interim Provisions on Regulating Online Unfair Competition, finding issues of using "service agreements, transaction rules, and technical means" to impose unreasonable restrictions on transactions and transaction prices of merchants on the platform.
On the Black Cat Complaint platform, the total number of complaints containing the keyword "Ctrip" (Trip.com) reached 160,303. From December last year to January this year alone, there were over 3,600 complaints. The complaints involve issues such as obstacles to refunds for flights and hotels, platform price adjustments, disputes over compensation for price differences, bundled consumption, false advertising, and loan disputes. Regarding Trip.com's travel services, the platform has received a cumulative total of 119,321 consumer complaints, with 2,386 complaints filed in the last 30 days. For Trip.com's financial services, the total number of complaints is 22,870, with 1,273 complaints in the recent 30 days.
On January 14, Trip.com Group responded to the event, stating that it would actively cooperate with the regulatory investigation and fully implement the regulatory requirements. This case marks the first formal antitrust investigation launched by the State Administration for Market Regulation against a major platform enterprise since the "pick one" cases involving Alibaba and Meituan in 2021 and the case against CNKI for abusing its market dominance at the end of 2022.
The background of this立案调查 is the state's systematic effort to curb "involution-style" competition. In December 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation explicitly stated that 2026 would see "strengthened anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition enforcement, with in-depth rectification of 'involution-style' competition." Officially defined, "involution-style competition" refers to low-price, low-quality, low-level competition that not only disrupts the market but also erodes the long-term competitiveness of enterprises.
The new Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, introduced in 2025, has brought typical "involution-style" behaviors, such as platforms forcing merchants to sell below cost or abusing rules for false transactions, under regulatory scope. In September 2025, the General Office of the State Council issued a notice explicitly requiring online travel platforms not to infringe upon tourist rights through practices like "big data price discrimination," false advertising, or bundled sales, and to promote healthy competition among platforms while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of merchants operating on them.
If Trip.com is found to have abused its dominant market position, it could face administrative fines, confiscation of illegal gains, and other penalties. According to Article 57 of China's Anti-Monopoly Law, if an operator abuses its dominant market position, the anti-monopoly enforcement agency shall order it to cease the illegal activities, confiscate the illegal gains, and impose a fine of between 1% and 10% of its sales revenue from the previous year.