Their stance against G’s dominance appears to be a strategic move to gain market share or leverage against a competitor, rather than a consistent commitment to open markets across the board. This selective advocacy can be perceived as opportunistic lobbying and it diminishes its moral authority.

Even an EU Parliament TRAN Committee opinion warned against “extreme interpretations” of the DMA that could degrade user experience .

Consumers want convenient, informative search results. Google’s integrated maps, flight comparisons, or hotel price snippets exist because users find them useful. The op-ed implies any such vertical integration is nefarious, yet it fails to acknowledge that removing those features might harm the UX.

They explicitly accused G of "deceptive DMA (non-)compliance tactics" in June 2024. They highlighted Google's "test" of a "ten blue links" display for hotel queries, arguing it was a deliberate tactic to generate negative user feedback and political backlash, rather than a genuine compliance effort

Perhaps the most extreme claim is that “to align with the spirit and letter of the law, Google will need to move away from offering vertical search features on the SERP” . In fact, the Commission’s DMA enforcement is about ensuring fair ranking and equal treatment, not dictating Google’s UX design.

These companies now lobby against competition from Google while maintaining their own market power

The article fails to mention that companies like Booking achieved their own dominant positions through similar strategies:
Booking became dominant in hotel bookings across Europe
Expedia consolidated numerous travel brands

They cite Google’s market share (90%) and its ~400 million monthly EU users while conveniently omitting the market share of their own members (Booking holds 65% market share (90% in some hotel segments), and the dominance of OTAs in Travel - some labelling the OTA market an oligopoly.

One of eu travel tech’s primary members, Booking, is itself designated as a “gatekeeper” under the DMA. Parity clauses imposed are now illegal and celebrated by SME’s, while Booking defended till the end that “parity clauses benefited consumers by providing easy access to a variety of options”.

Booking was fined €413M in Spain for abusing its dominance*. The same kind of “self-preferencing” EU Travel Tech now claims to oppose. Airbnb has faced numerous lawsuits in the EU: facilitating illegal rentals, failing to comply with consumer protection laws, impact on the housing market…

EU Travel Tech’s claims to represent SME and consumers, while its members impose abusive (and now illegal) parity clauses, engaging in anti-competitive practices, allow (and encourage) illegal properties to be listed on their platforms, charging 15-25% commissions…

Despite the name, only 6 of its 16 listed members can be considered EU companies:
Airbnb 🇺🇸
Booking Holdings Inc 🇺🇸 *
eDreamsOdigeo 🇪🇺
eTraveli Group 🇪🇺
Skyscanner 🇨🇳
Amadeus 🇪🇺
American Express (GBT) 🇺🇸
Get Your Guide 🇪🇺
Lastminutecom 🇨🇭
Sabre 🇺🇸
Trainline 🇬🇧
Travelport 🇬🇧
Tripadvisor 🇺🇸
Idealo 🇪🇺
Omio 🇪🇺

The lobby group EU TravelTech published its OpEd on the same day as the initial 2 day workshop organized by the EU Commission on Alphabet's compliance with DMA law. (7th & 8th of July).
digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/consultation...

eutraveltech.eu/dma-6-5-and-...

www.diariodemallorca.es/mallorca/202...