Key Highlights
- The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned adverts for Booking.com and three hotel chains over claims of misleading sales on cheap rooms.
- The ASA found that the advertised prices were not accurately reflecting how many rooms were available at those rates.
- Which? head of consumer protection policy, Sue Davies, praised the action as sending a message to other businesses about accurate pricing.
- Hilton, Travelodge, Accor, and Booking.com have been criticized for their ad practices by the ASA, with claims that only a small proportion of rooms were actually available at advertised prices.
Advertising Standards Authority Bans Adverts Over Misleading Sales Claims
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has taken decisive action against Booking.com and three major hotel chains after finding their advertisements to be misleading. The ASA’s decision, published on November 19, 2025, highlights the importance of clear and accurate pricing in online travel advertising.
What Went Wrong?
The ASA investigated Booking.com and Travelodge, Hilton, and Accor after receiving complaints that their advertisements overstated the availability of rooms at lower prices. According to the investigation, while some hotels advertised “from” prices, it was not clear how many rooms were actually available at those rates on various dates.
Booking.com’s Response
In a statement, Booking.com defended its practices. They stated that the dates and prices shown in their ads were dynamically chosen by Google from data provided by them. However, the ASA found that only a small number of bookings were made at the advertised price on certain dates.
For instance, in May 2025, seven bookings were made at the easyHotel Sheffield for the advertised £28 rate. This was insufficient to substantiate the claim “from £28,” according to the ASA.
Hilton and Other Hotel Chains
Similarly, Hilton’s ads for Hampton by Hilton Hamilton Park and Newcastle were found wanting. The ASA stated that there was not enough evidence to show a large proportion of rooms available at the advertised prices. Meanwhile, Travelodge and Accor faced similar criticisms. Adverts like “Travelodge Nottingham Riverside From £25” and “Travelodge Swansea M4 From £21” suggested significant availability but only offered these prices for one night’s stay.
Industry Response
Hilton acknowledged the ruling, stating that they take their responsibilities under ASA advertising guidelines seriously. They noted that the prices in question were generated from a live pricing feed and represented the cheapest bookable date available.
Travelodge also defended its practices, emphasizing clarity and transparency in pricing while working closely with Google to ensure ad formats are compliant.
Consumer Protection Perspective
Sue Davies, head of consumer protection policy at Which?, welcomed the ASA’s action. She stated that it is “completely unacceptable” for hotels to mislead customers with too-good-to-be-true sales. Which? had previously reported hotel groups using sneaky bait-pricing tactics, leading to this regulatory response.
Future Implications
The rulings from the ASA underscore the need for greater transparency in advertising across the travel industry. They suggest that businesses must display accurate prices and ensure they do not mislead consumers. This could lead to stricter enforcement of advertising standards and more robust consumer protection measures going forward.
The case also highlights the challenges of dynamic pricing, where prices can change based on real-time demand. While such practices are common in many industries, they require clear communication to avoid misleading customers.
