Ryanair says eDreams, VOLA and Booking .com overcharging customers

Ryanair (FR/RYR) has said unauthorised Online Travel Agents (OTA) eDreams, VOLA and Booking ,com are overcharging customers by up to three times for things such as base fares, reserved seats and extra baggage if booked through Ryanair or a Ryanair authorised OTA.

It’s March OTA survey found that eDreams charged €23 to reserve a standard seat, which was just €8 direct with Ryanair a 188% overcharge.

VOLA charged €15.99 for a reserved seat that was just €5, a 220% overcharge. Another sample found VOLA charged €70 for a €43.46 fare, marking the price up by 61%.

Booking .com also bumped prices up when rival low-cost carrier easyJet was used with a reserved seat, getting a markup of 40% and extra baggage 16% higher than it should be.

Ryanair’s Dara Brady said: “Our March survey shows yet again that non-approved OTAs such as eDreams, Vola and Booking.com continue to overcharge consumers by a shameful up to 220% over Ryanair prices. They continue to inflate prices of air fares and reserved seating which are much cheaper for consumers when booked directly on airline websites. This latest evidence of consumer overcharging by non-approved OTAs is unacceptable.  

“EU Govts and consumer authorities, including Spain’s Consumer Affairs Minister, Bustinduy, should now take urgent action to outlaw these hidden OTA overcharges and protect consumers from this OTA overcharging.”

Update

Since Ryanair made these claims, a court in Barcelona made a ruling that they were factually incorrect.

A spokesperson acting on behalf of eDreams told us: “A July 2025 ruling by the Barcelona Commercial Court No. 12 found that the claims made by Ryanair against eDreams ODIGEO were untruthful and constituted a campaign of unlawful competition by denigration. This followed an earlier June 2025 decision by a higher court, the Barcelona Court of Appeal, which, in dismissing Ryanair’s appeal of the initial interim measures granted in this case, also concluded that Ryanair’s claims were untrue and did not constitute a legitimate, fact-based informational campaign.”