Berlin Court Bans eDreams Prime Terms Over Transparency Issues

Berlin Court Rules on eDreams Prime Terms

We are witnessing a significant development in the ongoing legal dispute between Ryanair and the online travel agent eDreams ODIGEO. On November 26, 2025, the Berlin Regional Court granted a permanent injunction against eDreams. This ruling specifically targets certain terms and conditions associated with the company’s Prime subscription service, which the court found to be in violation of German consumer protection laws. This decision marks the latest chapter in a multi-jurisdictional conflict regarding how third-party platforms sell air travel.

The core of this legal action revolves around transparency. The court prohibited eDreams from utilizing specific clauses that were deemed misleading regarding the savings consumers could achieve through the Prime subscription. Furthermore, the ruling addressed the mechanisms of the subscription itself, specifically how fee increases were communicated to users. The court found that eDreams failed to provide adequate disclosure regarding when membership fees might rise, ruling that terms implying a customer’s continued use of the service constituted tacit acceptance of these price hikes were unlawful.

This judgment is particularly notable because it reinforces the strict transparency requirements mandated by the German Unfair Competition Act. For the aviation and travel technology sectors, this serves as a critical case study on the boundaries of digital subscription models and the presentation of price comparisons. While Ryanair views this as a confirmation of their long-standing complaints against Online Travel Agents (OTAs), the implications extend to how digital services across the European Union structure their auto-renewal and pricing policies.

The Battle of Narratives: “Pirates” vs. “Legacy” Systems

Following the ruling, the response from both stakeholders highlights the intense competitive friction between direct airline bookings and OTA aggregators. Ryanair immediately welcomed the decision, utilizing the verdict to bolster their campaign against what they term OTA Pirates. The Airlines’s position is that these intermediaries often overcharge consumers or obscure the true cost of travel services. By securing this injunction, Ryanair aims to pressure EU Consumer Protection Authorities to enforce similar standards across the continent, arguing that such transparency is essential for consumer welfare.

“We welcome the Berlin Regional Court’s decision to grant a permanent injunction prohibiting eDreams from using eDreams Prime terms and conditions that the Court has previously found to be ‘unlawful’ or ‘misleading’.”, Ryanair Spokesperson.

Conversely, eDreams ODIGEO has publicly dismissed the ruling as substantially irrelevant to their current operations. In their response issued on November 27, 2025, the company argued that the injunction pertains to a legacy version of their website and specific display formats that have long been discontinued. According to eDreams, the court’s decision does not impact the core value proposition of the Prime subscription or the benefits currently offered to subscribers. They maintain that the ruling is strictly limited to the visual placement of information on an outdated interface.

We must also consider the broader context of this rivalry to understand the full picture. While Ryanair secured this victory in Berlin, the legal landscape is mixed. For instance, in July 2025, a commercial court in Barcelona ruled in favor of eDreams, ordering Ryanair to cease its denigration campaign. In that instance, the Spanish court found that Ryanair’s accusations that eDreams deceives customers constituted unfair competition. This back-and-forth suggests that while individual battles are being won and lost, the war for market dominance and customer ownership remains unresolved.

Implications for the “Approved OTA” Model

A central element of Ryanair’s Strategy is the push for its Approved OTA model. The airline has successfully negotiated agreements with several other travel aggregators, such as Loveholidays, Kiwi, and On the Beach. These agreements typically require the OTA to cease screen scraping, the practice of using software to extract data from the airline’s website without permission, and to provide the airline with direct customer contact details. This ensures the airline can communicate directly with passengers regarding flight changes or ancillary services.

eDreams remains the most significant holdout in this strategy, refusing to sign such an agreement. The Berlin ruling provides Ryanair with additional leverage to argue that non-approved OTAs operate with insufficient transparency. However, eDreams continues to argue that their model provides unique value through interlining (combining flights from different carriers) and bundled discounts that a single airline cannot replicate. The friction here is fundamentally about who owns the customer relationship: the carrier operating the flight or the platform facilitating the booking.

Looking ahead, we anticipate that this ruling will encourage further scrutiny of digital subscription models in the travel industry. The Berlin Regional Court’s decision aligns with a wider trend among European regulators to crack down on dark patterns, user interface designs that may trick users into doing things they didn’t mean to, such as agreeing to hidden fees. Whether eDreams is forced to alter its current interface or if their legacy defense holds up in the court of public opinion remains to be seen.

Conclusion

The permanent injunction granted by the Berlin Regional Court represents a tangible legal victory for Ryanair in its campaign for greater transparency in the OTA market. By successfully challenging the terms and conditions of the eDreams Prime subscription, the airline has highlighted the legal risks associated with misleading savings claims and opaque renewal clauses. However, the practical impact of this ruling may be tempered if, as eDreams claims, the judgment applies only to discontinued website iterations.

Ultimately, this case underscores the evolving regulatory environment surrounding digital travel sales. As courts in Germany, Spain, and the United States continue to weigh in on issues ranging from screen scraping to defamation, the industry is moving toward a pivotal moment. We expect that the pressure for clear, transparent pricing and fair competition will force both airlines and OTAs to refine their digital strategies to ensure compliance and maintain consumer trust.

FAQ

What did the Berlin Regional Court rule regarding eDreams?
The court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting eDreams from using specific terms and conditions for its Prime subscription that were deemed misleading and unlawful, particularly regarding savings claims and fee transparency.

How has eDreams responded to the injunction?
eDreams stated that the ruling is substantially irrelevant because it concerns a legacy version of their website and display formats that are no longer in use.

Does this ruling affect all Online Travel Agents (OTAs)?
No, this specific ruling is against eDreams. However, Ryanair is using the verdict to call for broader enforcement of transparency standards across the OTA industry.

Sources

• Ryanair Corporate News