China’s market regulator has opened a formal antitrust investigation into Ctrip Group, the nation’s dominant online travel agent, escalating scrutiny of platform conduct across the travel sector. The inquiry, brought by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) under the Anti‑Monopoly Law, follows complaints that Ctrip abused a market‑leading position through preferential contract terms and algorithmic pricing tools. The announcement rattled markets: Ctrip’s Hong Kong shares slid about 6.5% on the day the probe became public, erasing roughly HK$28.2 billion of market value.
The probe stems in part from grievances filed by local industry associations, which accuse Ctrip and some peers of imposing “choose‑one” clauses, unilaterally increasing commissions, blocking traffic and using technical measures to coerce hotels and homestays on price. Central to the allegations is Ctrip’s so‑called “price‑adjustment assistant,” an automated tool that scans competitor listings and pressures properties to match the lowest rate, and which hoteliers say has been applied without their consent. Past regional enforcement actions, including administrative interviews and findings by provincial regulators, have flagged similar practices as potential violations of China’s e‑commerce and anti‑unfair competition rules.
The investigation arrives against a backdrop of explicit regulatory attention to digital platforms. SAMR’s recent public guidance and draft compliance rules list new monopoly risks such as algorithmic collusion, platforms facilitating price coordination among merchants, forced price parity and opaque traffic‑blocking. Regulators have signalled that “lowest‑price” guarantees and automated repricing that effectively constrain merchant pricing may constitute an abuse of dominance or fall within prohibited cartel‑like behaviour.
Ctrip’s commercial heft helps explain the regulator’s focus. Industry estimates put the company’s share of OTA gross merchandise value (GMV) at roughly 56% in 2024, cementing its position as the sector’s clear market leader. The group has also posted a recovery and growth arc since the pandemic: Trip.com reported accommodation booking revenues of about RMB 8 billion in Q3 2025, roughly double comparable pre‑pandemic levels for that quarter according to the company’s disclosures. Yet profitability is under pressure: revenue growth is being outpaced by rising operating costs and sharply higher sales and marketing spend.
At the same time, China’s major tech players are leaning into travel. JD has publicly courted hotels with multi‑year zero‑commission offers and stressed its affluent user base, Douyin (ByteDance) is using content conversion and deep subsidies to drive bookings, Meituan is doubling down on “accommodation+” scenarios, and Alibaba has reorganised assets to better integrate discovery and booking. The result is intensifying competition for distribution, customers and merchant relationships, squeezing margins and incentivising aggressive commercial tactics across platforms.
If SAMR concludes Ctrip abused its dominant position, likely remedies could include behavioural orders to end exclusive clauses and opaque repricing mechanisms, compliance requirements for algorithmic transparency, fines, and closer supervision of platform–merchant contracts. Such remedies would reshape how OTAs enforce price parity and use automation, with immediate consequences for hotels’ pricing flexibility, consumers’ access to flash sales, and the economics of platform‑led promotions. For rivals and new entrants, regulatory action could open more room to negotiate with hotels and contest market share.
For investors and corporate strategists the case is a reminder that market power invites regulatory risk. Ctrip must balance defending its commercial model with a likely need to reconfigure tools that deliver guaranteed low prices. Competitors face a simultaneous opportunity and challenge: more equitable commercial terms could lower barriers, but the battle for users will remain fierce and may shift from price to content, loyalty programmes and integrated local services.
This investigation is less a singular enforcement action than a signal that China’s regulators intend to recast the rules of platform competition in travel. How SAMR defines acceptable algorithmic tools, parity clauses and merchant relationships will determine whether the next phase of the OTA market favors incumbent scale, new‑class entrants backed by tech giants, or a more fragmented, hotel‑friendly distribution landscape.