Are travel firms breaking the law on drip pricing?
Holiday providers Loveholidays and comparison site Trivago are among many travel firms that we think are breaking new legislation on drip pricing.
A new law – the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) – means that businesses must now provide the ‘total price’ for their services upfront. It came into force on 6 April, making it much easier to crack down on firms that add-on mandatory charges such as administration fees, booking fees or taxes at a later stage of the buying process.
After Which? Travel contacted them, some firms have either scrapped these fees or pledged to make them clearer.
But too many firms are still ignoring this – despite our warnings to them in the May issue of Which? Travel.
In the most extreme cases, consumers could find themselves paying hundreds of pounds more than the upfront price.
We’ve highlighted firms that we think should be investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), as, in our view, the way they present prices breaks the new law.
Get travel advice and recommendations you can trust from the experts with our Travel newsletter - it's free
Hotel resort fees rip-off
If you search on comparison sites Kayak and Trivago, where you can compare hotel prices from different booking providers, you’ll find a huge variation in prices between the cheapest and most expensive hotel deals.
The Excalibur Hotel in Las Vegas is a case in point. When we checked earlier this year, a week at this fantastically kitsch casino, built to look like a storybook castle, was just £371 in July on Loveholidays and a similar price on BA Holidays and some smaller firms.
In contrast, Booking.com and Hotels.com both said the price was closer to £700.
Loveholidays even claimed that its price ‘includes hotel fees and local tourist tax’. However, this turned out to be little more than a fairy tale. When we contacted Loveholidays, it admitted that the price didn’t include the full hotel fees that Booking.com and Hotels.com did take into account.
There was a staggering £257 extra to pay when you check out. Arguably, this should have been made clear even under previously existing laws, not just under the new DMCC Act.
Excalibur, like most hotels in Las Vegas and many other hotels in the US and the Caribbean, has what it calls a ‘resort fee’ – a mandatory charge for services you may or may not use. This allows it to advertise a price that you pay in advance, and another hefty sum when you leave. This is legal, although heavily criticised even in the US, but websites aimed at the UK market need to tell customers about these fees from the start.
Loveholidays breaking the law?
After we contacted Loveholidays in February, it tweaked the listing very slightly, removing the claim that its price includes hotel fees and adding the caveat ‘depending on your hotel’s policy, you may also be asked to pay additional hotel fees’.
It told us it would ensure it’s compliant with new laws before they come into effect, but when we checked in May, this had not happened. Unlike many of its rivals, it still did not show the resort fee for the Excalibur. It now says: ‘Your hotel may charge additional fees, which must be paid there,’ but does not reveal that these unavoidable fees could add hundreds of pounds to the cost of your stay.
When we contacted the company again, it didn’t give us a statement but did suggest that it was looking into showing resort fees in its prices. Until it does, we think that it’s breaking the law. Some other less well-known sites are also failing to include resort fees, but most of the big ones – including Booking.com, Expedia, Hotels.com and Lastminute.com do include them.
BA Holidays says it will comply with the law
BA Holidays also failed to include the full cost of the resort fee for Excalibur when we first checked in February, before the new law was introduced.
It seemed to bury it towards the bottom of the page in an ‘essential information’ section, above mundane details about the swimming pool. However, it told us it would comply with the new law.
When we checked again in May 2025, the price shown initially said ‘Hotel from £388,’ but when we clicked through, it said: ‘The advertised price has changed. Due to availability, the advertised price of £388 is no longer available on these dates. The best available price for these dates is now £671.’
We think this has nothing to do with ‘availability’ and is just a belated attempt to include the ‘resort fee’ in response to the new law. However, the real price should be shown from the start.
We flagged this to BA, and it said it was working to fix the problem.
Kayak complies with the law – but is Trivago breaking the law?
When we contacted Kayak in February, it removed firms that did not show the resort fee from its listings for Excalibur.
It said that it aims to display all mandatory fees, including resort fees, but that because its search is automated, there may be rare instances where fees aren’t included. It said these are investigated to resolve any discrepancies.
Trivago didn’t respond to a request for comment in February. When we checked in May, it was still including accommodation sites that do not show the resort fee in listings for the Excalibur and other hotels.
We asked it again last week (12 May) if it plans to make changes to comply with the DMCC Act. It told us that it engages with its accommodation partners to make sure they provide accurate pricing information. It said: ‘We are reviewing these cases and will raise any issues with the relevant partners so they can be addressed and will continue to prioritise accurate pricing by our partners to our users.’
As of 14 May, it was still showing hotel providers that don’t include the resort fee in their prices.
No more add-on ‘admin fees’?
One big positive of the new legislation is that it should outlaw the practice of sticking admin and booking fees onto the end of transactions. Many travel companies still include them, with no obvious justification.
Megabus says it will change to comply with the law
A one-way ticket from London to Birmingham comes up as a bargain £5.99 when paying online with Megabus. However, just before you go to pay it whacks on £1.50 booking fee – putting the price up by 25% to £7.49.
Megabus told us in February that the £1.50 fee is referred to in numerous places on its website, and that it believes in sharing costs upfront and openly with customers. It also said it would comply with any new regulation.
However, when we checked again in May for a journey on the Megabus.co.uk website, a £1.50 booking fee still popped up just before we were about to pay. We couldn’t see the fee mentioned anywhere on the site prior to checkout.
The journey we were booking, from London to Bath, is actually operated by National Express. On the National Express website, there's a disclaimer that prices exclude a £1.50 booking fee. This is not ideal (why can’t it just include the fee in the cost?) but it is clearer than Megabus, which we think is breaking the law.
Megabus told us that it’s ‘committed to offering transparent and affordable travel’ and that it would update its prices by the end of May 2025 to ensure the booking fees are clearly shown at the start of the booking process.
Wowcher breaking the law?
It’s a similar story with deals website, Wowcher. It says it can help you find cheap holidays, among other things, by using ‘the power of group buying or bulk buying to get unbeatable deals on the best stuff to do, see, visit, eat and buy’.
We chose a week’s summer holiday to Malta, which initially appeared to come to £1,278. But when we went to pay there was a £9.99 ‘administration fee’.
This seems absurd as ‘administration’ is clearly an integral part of selling a holiday. In the past, people accepted these kinds of sneaky add-on fees as an unavoidable annoyance – but we shouldn’t have to do this any more.
In February, Wowcher told us that it was reviewing how its admin fees were implemented and would make sure it continues to comply with any applicable law.
However, we checked again in May, and it was still not clear upfront that it had the £9.99 admin fee.
The company told us: ‘Wowcher has implemented various changes to its website to ensure compliance with the DMCC Act, including providing an estimate of its variable admin fee.’
But those changes simply mean that, for example, on a hotel booking in Barcelona, there’s now a tiny disclaimer ‘+ est £3.99 admin fee’. But £3.99 is Wowcher’s fee when you’re spending less than £100 – pretty unlikely for a hotel in Barcelona – even if you’re only staying one night. If the total hotel stay costs more than £200, the admin fee is £9.99, which you wouldn’t know before checkout unless you read the fine print.
We don’t think that the way Wowcher shows its prices complies with the law.
Luggage storage sites breaking the law?
In recent years, several new luggage storage services have sprung up. These services allow you to leave your bags in shops or hotels in return for a fee rather than having to find a railway station with spare lockers.
Unfortunately many of the ones we checked appear to be breaking the law in the way they show their prices.
In February, Bounce, Luggage Hero, Nanny Bag, Radical Storage and Stasher all charged similar fees of around £5 per bag, per day. But they all also added a ‘service fee’, ‘admin fee’ or mandatory ‘guarantee’ fee on top of that. This can add between £6 and £9 to the cost of leaving four cases for a day.
We warned them that they could be breaking the law if they did not scrap these sneaky add-ons – or make them clear from the beginning. None replied.
When we checked again in May, Nanny Bag had changed its pricing to say that fees were ‘starting from £3.90’ – still not ideal – but the rest gave an initial price that completely ignored booking fees and guarantee fees that were added on top.
We contacted the companies again last week, and this time Stasher responded to say that it was in the final stages of updating its prices to comply with the DMCC Act. When we checked on 19 May, it had scrapped the booking fee and the guarantee fee – making its pricing much more transparent.
Bounce, Luggage Hero and Radical Storage either need to do the same – or at least show any fees from the start. We think that they are currently breaking the law in the way they show prices. We approached them all for comment, but did not receive a response.
Ryanair – ripping off parents
A last-minute flight with Ryanair from Luton to the Costa Blanca at February half term cost a startling £2,335 for a family of four when we went to book. In the small print, though, it said that there’s an additional £8 fee each way for each parent to sit next to one of the kids. That’s £32 on a return flight.
Unfortunately, there’s no law against this as the fee is shown from the start. However, Ryanair needs to ensure the figure of £8 is correct.
When we went to seat selection, the plane was almost full and none of the cheap seats were available. Children get a free seat, but the cost for the adults to sit next to the children, which is mandatory on Ryanair, ended up being £110.
Ryanair would argue that this isn’t strictly drip pricing, but we still think it should be stopped from ripping parents off like this. Ideally, by not charging parents to sit next to their kids, but at least by making its pricing sufficiently transparent at the outset if it does.
We asked Ryanair whether it will change its policy, but it did not give us a response for publication.
Will airlines be banned from charging extra for luggage and seat selection?
It’s still not clear. When the idea of outlawing drip pricing was first floated a couple of years ago, travel was often highlighted as one of the worst examples. Book a flight with airlines such as easyJet or Ryanair and you're greeted with a steady drip of add-ons such as luggage and seat selection, which can hugely inflate the initial price.
It makes it incredibly hard to judge upfront whether or not you’ve got a good deal.
We found one Wizz Air fare last year that was four times more expensive, after you paid for a standard cabin bag and selected a seat.
That’s without checking anything in. However, the new law states that the total price has to include ‘any fees, charges or other payments that the consumer will necessarily incur’.
One question will be whether, for most travellers, taking a case that’s big enough for more than a couple of days' worth of clothes is really an optional extra.
At some point, a judge may be asked to decide whether sitting with your family or taking a case for the overhead locker are things that should be included in the price from the start, rather than sold to you later as optional extras.
Here's how the new DMCC Act can protect your rights.
What happens to firms that use outlawed drip pricing?
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) can issue fines of up to £300,000 or 10% of worldwide turnover – whichever is higher – without having to go to court. Trading Standards can also enforce the rules.
In the first 12 months of its enforcement, the CMA has said that it will prioritise clear infringements of the law and practices that are particularly harmful to consumers.
These will include ‘fees that are hidden until late in the buying process’ among other issues. We think that the examples we’ve flagged above as potentially breaking the law do show fees that are hidden until late in the buying process. We will be presenting our results to the CMA.
