Appeals Board: Booking.com Misleads Consumers by Failing to Adequately Explain Self-Assigned Hotel Star Ratings – July 2026
In a ruling dated 2 April 2026 (Dutch only), the Appeals Board (College van Beroep, CvB) of the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (Reclame Code Commissie, RCC) held that Booking.com misled consumers. On its platform, Booking.com displays hotel star ratings that have been awarded by the hotels themselves, without making this sufficiently clear to consumers.
Classification of Dutch Hotels
For many years, the Netherlands had a statutory hotel classification system, most recently based on the 2003 Hotel Classification Decree (Hotelclassificatiebesluit 2003). Under this decree, all hotels in the Netherlands were required to have their classification determined by the Hospitality and Catering Industry Board (Bedrijfschap Horeca en Catering).
With the abolition of the sectoral product and industry boards in 2015, the statutory classification system also came to an end. Hotel star ratings nevertheless remained an important criterion for consumers when selecting a hotel. Therefore, effective from 2017, Koninklijke Horeca Nederland (KHN), the largest trade association for the Dutch hospitality industry, introduced a voluntary classification system based on the Hotelstars Union (HSU) standards. The administration of this system was entrusted to Hotelsterren.nl (Dutch only).
Although many Dutch hotels have by now obtained a classification from Hotelsterren.nl, there are still hotels that have not done so. Several of these hotels have assigned themselves hotel star ratings and use those ratings in their advertising, including on Booking.com’s platform. In a ruling dated 6 December 2018 (Dutch only), the RCC already held that hotels mislead consumers when they advertise using self-assigned star ratings without providing an adequate explanation. Already in that ruling, Booking.com was advised not to display self-assigned hotel star ratings on its platform without providing adequate clarification. The present case demonstrates that Booking.com appears to have lost sight of that recommendation.
The Appeals Board’s Ruling
Since the abolition of the statutory hotel classification system, hotels have no longer been required to obtain an official classification. However, this does not mean that hotels are free to use self-awarded hotel star ratings at will. The average consumer still expects hotel stars to reflect a classification awarded by an independent body on the basis of objective assessment criteria. Consistent RCC rulings imply that when a hotel uses self-assigned star ratings without providing an adequate explanation it misleads consumers.
On the desktop and tablet versions of its platform, Booking.com provides a trigger next to a hotel’s displayed star rating. When a user hovers over it with the cursor, a text box appears containing the following message (the tooltip):
Furthermore, there is no graphical indication that the star rating is linked to a tooltip. The thumbs-up icon displayed next to the stars does not, in any event, indicate that the stars themselves are accompanied by a tooltip. While the thumbs-up icon does contain a trigger, it leads to an entirely different tooltip:
The reference in the tooltip accompanying the star rating to the page “How We Work” is provided with a hyperlink to that page. However, once on that page, the visitor must either click through or scroll down to the section headed “Star Ratings, Review Scores and Quality Ratings”. According to the CvB, this section merely states that Booking.com does not verify the classification indicated by the hotel. The CvB considered this explanation insufficient. In particular, the tooltip does not make it clear that an official hotel classification system does not exist in the Netherlands and that hotels frequently assign star ratings to themselves. Moreover, the wording tends to create the impression that star ratings are “usually” awarded by official organisations.
In the mobile version of the platform, the hotel star ratings are not linked to any trigger directing users to the tooltip. Users are therefore not alerted to the existence of the explanatory information. To find that information, they must actively seek it out on their own initiative by navigating to the “How We Work” page and locating the relevant section themselves. Given the number of steps involved, most users are unlikely to do so. Consequently, many users will remain unaware of the essential information concerning hotel star ratings.
The CvB held that Booking.com does not thereby dispel the expectations consumers associate with hotel star ratings. As a result, consumers may wrongly assume that the star ratings displayed on Booking.com’s platform have been awarded objectively by an independent body. This may influence a consumer’s booking decision. The CvB therefore found that the information regarding the origin of the star ratings is unclear within the meaning of Article 8.2(f) of the Netherlands Advertising Code (NRC). Consequently, the advertisements are contrary to Article 7 NRC. For that reason, the CvB upheld the decision of the RCC. Booking.com was recommended to refrain from displaying self awarded hotel star ratings unless it clearly explains that the hotels concerned themselves have determined the number of stars shown for those accommodations on Booking.com’s platform.
Commentary
The Dutch Advertising Code
The CvB qualified Booking.com’s conduct as misleading advertising on account of the unclear information concerning “the nature, characteristics and rights of the advertiser or its intermediary, such as its identity, assets, qualifications, status, recognition, affiliation, connections, industrial, commercial or intellectual property rights, or its prizes, awards and distinctions”, as referred to in Article 8.2(f) of the NRC. This provision corresponds in substance to Article 6:193c(1)(f) of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek) and Article 6(1)(f) of EU Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices. Advertising of this kind is prohibited under Article 7 NRC. In substantive terms, that provision corresponds to Article 6:193b(1) of the Dutch Civil Code and Article 5(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC.
Practical Implications of the Ruling
If Booking.com displays hotel star ratings on its platform that have not been awarded by an independent body on the basis of objective criteria, it must make this explicitly clear. Failing to do so misleads consumers. This transparency obligation applies not only to the desktop, laptop and tablet versions of the platform, but also to its mobile version. Moreover, hotels themselves will also need to take the ruling discussed above into account in their own online and offline advertising.
This decision merits attention, particularly because, following an extensive substantive debate, the RCC and the CvB have reaffirmed their earlier interpretation regarding the misleading nature of self-awarded hotel star ratings. However, this leaves open the question whether the clarification recommended by the RCC and the CvB constitutes the appropriate remedy to protect consumers sufficiently against the identified unfair commercial practice. As follows from the 4finance judgement of the EU Court of Justice, Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted in such a way that the objective of ensuring a high level of consumer protection is not jeopardised (para. 29).
Bringing a Complaint Before the RCC
Pursuant to Article 18 of the NRC, both undertakings and consumers are entitled to file a complaint with the RCC regarding misleading or aggressive advertising. Filing such a complaint is straightforward and inexpensive. In addition, decisions are generally issued within a relatively short period of time.
The decision takes the form of a non-binding recommendation and is not directly enforceable. If such a recommendation is ignored, the matter may be brought before the civil courts. In doing so, the court is not bound by the decision of the Advertising Code Committee or the Board of Appeal and retains its own discretion in assessing the case. Courts will generally take decisions of the RCC and the CvB seriously, given their expertise and standing in evaluating advertising-related issues. In practice, recommendations issued by the RCC and the CvB are almost always followed. The 2024 Annual Report (Dutch only) reports a compliance rate of 96%. This high percentage is likely attributable, at least in part, to the fact that the RCC monitors compliance and publicly discloses cases in which a recommendation has not been implemented.
