Rate parity did not end. It split.

On 28 September 2026 the European Commission published a factsheet on how businesses using Booking.com are "free to set their prices on and off Booking.com". Read quickly, that sounds like the end of rate parity: you can finally sell cheaper on your own website. For a property in the European Economic Area, and for Booking.com, that is close to true. The Commission wrote that Booking.com removed the parity requirements from its EEA terms in July 2024, and that from September 2026 your prices elsewhere no longer count for the discount Booking.com funds itself either.

That is one platform.

Expedia publishes its standard agreement in several versions, all public. In every version I opened that has a rate clause, if your property is in the EEA or in Israel, the agreement requires rates on Expedia at least as good as those on your own public website. In Israel, Booking.com's own terms still reach your website price too. A cheaper website rate that one platform now allows can still break the contract with another.

The documents say more than the headline

I read the Commission's factsheet, Booking.com's terms and partner pages, 13 versions of Expedia's standard agreement and its ranking guide, and the complaint filed against Expedia in Seattle.

Booking.com in the EEA. According to the Commission, Booking.com's default ranking and its Genius, Preferred and Preferred Plus programmes in the EEA already ignored your prices on other channels. From September 2026 that also holds for the Booking Sponsored Benefit, a discount Booking.com funds itself. In the terms, clause 2.1.4 says you need not give Booking.com the same or better rates, though it still bars any action "designed to free-ride on" Booking.com's investment.

Booking.com's three groups of countries. The General Delivery Terms I read on 12 October 2026 (version v2611) sort countries into three groups. No Parity Countries are the EEA, Switzerland, Chile, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa. Narrow Parity Countries include Israel, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and Turkey. Every other country is a Wide Parity Country.

What the narrow version covers. For a property in Israel, clause 2.2.1 requires the same or better rates and conditions on Booking.com, including add-ons such as breakfast and policies such as cancellation. Clause 2.2.2 leaves out three things: other online agencies you do not control; offline channels such as the phone or the front desk, as long as those prices are not published or marketed online; and unpublished rates that are not marketed online. The contract's definition of "marketed online" excludes email and messages "that are not aimed at the general public".

An email offer booked on your website. Clause 5.1(v) is a promise you make: that your price on Booking.com is at least as good as the best price on your own website, including one "otherwise made available online" there, and that a guest cannot get a better price by booking directly on your website or app. It has no exception for unpublished rates. The terms do not say how it fits with clause 2.2.2 when an offer goes out by email and the guest books it on your website.

What Booking.com does not use in Israel. Annex 4 of the same terms says that for both no-parity and narrow-parity countries, the default ranking does not take into account your prices on other channels. The same annex says that taking part in programmes such as Preferred does affect the ranking. In Israel, the pressure comes from the clauses and the programmes: Booking.com's Preferred Partner page asks properties in narrow-parity countries for prices competitive with their own website, and its Booking Sponsored Benefit page says the discount, available only to properties that use Payments by Booking.com, may apply when "your property's prices aren't competitive", or when they are and you have opted in.

Expedia's agreement. Expedia publishes its standard lodging agreement in numbered versions. On 12 October 2026 I opened versions 320 to 332, 13 in all. Eleven have a rate clause; two, 328 and 332, have none, and the numbering does not show which version is current. The eleven with a rate clause come in three kinds:

Six versions sort countries into three groups. In Australia the clause does not apply. In the EEA, Israel, the UK, Switzerland, Japan and seven other places, the agreement requires your rates on Expedia to be "equal to or better than" those on your own public online channels. The text spells Israel "Isreal". Everywhere else, the comparison also covers third-party channels. In versions 329 to 331, the agreement also requires the prices of extras such as parking or early check-in to be at least as good as on any other channel, in every country but Australia.
In versions 322 to 324, the comparison is with your own public online channels, "Unless you are located in Australia".
In versions 320 and 321, it is with your own and third-party channels, in every country.

Where the comparison is with your own public online channels, Expedia's definition leaves out email and messages not aimed at the general public. Expedia may update the country groups "from time to time at Expedia's sole discretion", with notice. And national law can limit the contract: in Switzerland, since 1 December 2022, a booking platform whose terms restrict a hotel's prices through parity clauses is engaging in unfair competition.

Expedia's ranking. Expedia's guide to visibility lists "rate competitiveness" among the signals it uses to rank properties. It does not say what your rate is compared with.

The lawsuit. On 2 October 2026, three guests filed Andrews v. Expedia Group in the federal court in Seattle, case 2:26-cv-03743, about hotels in the United States. They allege that Expedia's contract and its ranking keep hotels from being cheaper elsewhere. These are allegations, and the case has barely begun: as of 12 October 2026, the court record, as mirrored on CourtListener, holds only the complaint and procedural filings.

What it means for you

If your property is in the EEA. On Booking.com, you may price your website lower. Before you do, read the rate clause in your Expedia contract. Then ask the question that matters more: whether a cheaper direct rate wins guests you would not otherwise have had, or only moves your own guests onto a lower price. I wrote about that difference in Your direct guest is not your OTA guest.

If your property is in Israel, or in the UK. A cheaper rate or better conditions on your own public website conflict with both platforms' published terms, and Booking.com's clause names add-ons such as breakfast too. An email offer booked on your website is the case Booking.com's terms leave open. What Booking.com's clauses plainly leave outside: rates at the front desk or by phone that you do not publish or market online, and lower prices on other agencies you do not control.

What to do

Read your own clauses, platform by platform. On Booking.com, clause 2.1.4 in the EEA, or clauses 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 5.1(v) in Israel and the UK. On Expedia, the rate clause in section C of the version you signed. Then check whether your country's law allows the clause at all.
In the EEA, check Expedia first. Then measure whether a lower website rate brings new guests or only moves existing ones to a lower price.
In Israel, do not price the website below either platform. Build the direct relationship after the first stay: the guest who has stayed with you is the one you can reach directly. A booking by phone or at the front desk, at a rate you do not publish or market online, sits outside Booking.com's parity clauses.
On Expedia, treat a ranking change after a price change elsewhere as a first data point. Expedia's guide names other inputs that move a ranking too, so one change proves little on its own.

Three questions the documents do not answer

Expedia's guide does not say whether rate competitiveness compares your price with other sites, with other hotels, or with both. Booking.com's terms do not say how clause 5.1(v) treats an offer sent by email and booked on your website. And the versions Expedia publishes cannot show which one you signed: only your own contract shows that.

The uncomfortable part is that the freedom, where it exists, says nothing about whether a cheaper website rate makes you money.

Rate parity did not end. It split, and each piece now has its own rule.