Just as Chinese travellers were checking into hotels and boarding planes for summer holidays booked through Trip.com, the country’s biggest online travel agent received some painful news.
The State Administration for Market Regulation imposed Rmb5.18bn ($770mn) in penalties on the US- and HK-listed company, saying a six-month antitrust investigation had found it abused its market dominance.
The SAMR punishment announced in late July was less severe than many investors had expected, but it laid bare the extent of the grip on China’s vast travel industry of a company that handled more than Rmb1tn worth of online bookings globally in 2025.
The company accounted for more than half the market for online hotel bookings in each of the five years to 2025 — a period during which SAMR said its Chinese revenues trebled. Trip.com’s global revenues, most of which come from the mainland Chinese market, grew 17 per cent to Rmb62.5bn last year.
The company was “interwoven in the fabric of Chinese culture”, said Kai Wang, an analyst at investment research company Morningstar.
Founded as Ctrip in 1999 and listed on Nasdaq in 2003, Trip.com has become a core part of China’s sprawling and sophisticated online economy.
It is the default option for travel in a country where official data shows rapid growth in tourism. Its bookings far exceed those of rivals such as Alibaba-backed Fliggy and Tongcheng, China’s second-biggest travel platform, in which it has a minority stake.
It also has a growing international presence through the Trip.com website, an originally US platform it acquired in 2017, a year after buying UK flight search company Skyscanner for £1.4bn.
Its overall business, which saw net income double in 2025 to Rmb33bn, relies heavily on commission fees. For domestic flights, Morningstar’s Wang said these were limited in China to just Rmb5-10 per ticket.
But the SAMR investigation made clear that hotel bookings could be far more lucrative.
The regulator stated that Trip.com had such strong pricing power that hotel operators had “virtually no room for negotiation on service fees such as commissions”, adding: “The company can influence and even control hotel prices within the platform.”
Trip.com declined an interview request. In an emailed statement, it said it was committed to respecting laws and regulations everywhere it operated. “We fully acknowledge the recent SAMR findings and are implementing the required adjustments in accordance with the guidance provided,” it said.
There are signs Trip.com takes an extremely dedicated approach to ensuring hotel participation on its platform.
Manoj Mehta was chief executive officer of the group that owned luxury horseriding resort Naked Stables near Shanghai, which initially resisted using online platforms for customer bookings. “We saw this type of traffic as a drug,” Mehta said, and wanted to “own our own customers”.
In 2019, Trip.com got in touch to request a meeting. To Mehta’s surprise, it was with chief executive Jane Sun. “It was like ‘I need to pinch myself’,” he said. “Here I am sitting with the CEO of a . . . company listed on Nasdaq and she’s trying to convince us to list our two little puny properties.”
They agreed to join the platform, under terms in which Mehta said “prices are only controlled by us”. Trip.com later took a minority stake in the Naked resorts, then a majority stake in 2025, he said.
The SAMR ruling suggests that in other cases, Trip.com’s approach to co-operation was more cut-throat.
The regulator found that Trip.com required hotels that wanted so-called “special brand” status on its platform to sign exclusive co-operation agreements. If they then listed on another platform, they would potentially face “punitive measures” such as limits on how many Trip.com users would see their listings.
Trip.com’s transport operations have also previously drawn scrutiny. It was fined in 2017 for bundling insurance into flight bookings without fully disclosing the terms.
Wang of Morningstar said Trip.com was “positioned to benefit from the country’s rising demand for higher-margin outbound travel”.
Beijing has also in recent years been heavily promoting domestic travel, hoping to boost services spending at a time when household confidence has remained weak in the wake of a property slump. Spending on travel by tourists reached Rmb6.3tn in 2025, up 9.5 per cent from the previous year, according to the government.
In some regions, government support has led to heavy investment in supply.
Mehta said that in some areas near the Naked Stables resort there was “not one house that is not converted to a bed and breakfast”.
Small accommodation providers would struggle to market themselves to consumers even in the nearby metropolises of Shanghai and Hangzhou without relying on an external online platform.
“I think the hotels will continue to go back to Trip.com . . . just given the fact they do reach the most people in China,” said Wang.
SAMR ordered Trip.com to “immediately cease” abusing its dominant market position by attaching “unreasonable trading conditions” or restricting hotels from operating on other platforms.
“This is strike two, strike one was back in 2017,” Wang said. “I don’t see them running afoul of the government again.”
