A state antitrust probe into Ctrip, China’s biggest online travel agency, has crystallised months of merchant grievances about opaque fees, hidden promotional charges and de facto exclusivity requirements that hoteliers say leave them dependent and unprofitable.
On 14 January 2026 the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) opened a formal investigation into Ctrip for alleged abuse of market dominance across hotel and airfare businesses and possible discriminatory use of consumer data. The move follows coordinated complaints from provincial regulators and industry associations, and a public campaign among guesthouse operators in tourist regions such as Yunnan.
Small hoteliers describe an economic squeeze: explicit commission rates have remained stable, but a proliferation of paid “traffic” products — auction-like keywords, ranked placements and extra-commission schemes — has pushed their effective take to an estimated 30–40 percent in some regions. Merchants in Yunnan report that 70–90 percent of their bookings come through Ctrip, leaving them little choice but to buy exposure on the platform.
The industry’s ire focuses on Ctrip’s “special-brand” (te-pai) partners, a top-tier listing that historically brought guaranteed flow in exchange for exclusivity or de facto single-platform pricing. Contracts now read more softly than before, but hoteliers say Ctrip’s business managers still press them to keep prices and listings lower on the platform and to limit sales elsewhere — a practice merchants call “you work for Ctrip.”
The complaint file includes screen captures of bid prices of RMB3–3.5 per click for certain keywords, screenshots of punitive traffic restrictions, and examples of an automated repricing tool that allegedly lowered hotels’ prices without timely consent. Merchants say these practices have intensified as supply has swollen and consumer demand softened, turning once-profitable promotions into costly necessities.
Ctrip’s dominant position is the core regulatory concern. Through acquisitions and investments since 2014 the company controls an estimated 56 percent share of core accommodation GMV and nearly 70 percent if strategic investments are included — a concentration that triggers presumptions of market power under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law. Legal scholars point to Article 22 and its prohibition on abuse of dominance, including exclusive dealing and misuse of data or algorithms.
Past cases against Chinese tech platforms provide a template for what might follow: fines, mandated behavioural remedies and the risk of private claims by harmed hotels or competitors. Observers estimate penalties could start at several percent of annual sales, and regulators may press for structural or operational changes that curb exclusionary practices.
For hoteliers the immediate anxieties are practical: loss of bargaining leverage, rising marketing costs and dependency on a single ecosystem to reach travellers. For Ctrip the stakes are reputational and strategic as it pursues international expansion; the probe arrives as the company increases spending to capture inbound tourism and compete with global OTAs such as Booking and Expedia.
Ctrip has pledged to cooperate with regulators and to keep operations running normally. But the case is a test of Beijing’s appetite for reining in platform gatekeepers while preserving their role as consumer-facing infrastructure in services where scale and standardisation deliver convenience. The outcome will signal how China balances enforcement against dominant digital incumbents with the government’s broader goal of cultivating globally competitive tech champions.