China's State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) fined Trip.com Group 5.48 billion yuan (US$763 million) on June 11, 2025, concluding that the country's largest online travel platform abused its dominant position in the hotel-booking market in violation of Articles 22(4) and 22(5) of the Anti-Monopoly Law.

The penalty breaks down into three components: a confiscation of approximately 1.76 billion yuan (US$244.4 million) in alleged illegal gains, an administrative fine of roughly 3.74 billion yuan (US$518.9 million) set at 7.5% of Trip.com's 2025 China sales, and a refund obligation of about 130 million yuan (US$18 million) in hotel security deposits that Trip.com had deducted from partners. The combined total reaches the headline figure of US$763 million.

Trip.com disclosed the ruling in a Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

What did SAMR find?

Regulators determined that Trip.com deployed traffic-allocation mechanisms, technical measures, and platform rules that pushed hotels into exclusive cooperation agreements in exchange for preferential search placement and lower advertised prices. SAMR opened the investigation in January 2025.

Articles 22(4) and 22(5) of the Anti-Monopoly Law prohibit firms with a dominant market position from entering exclusive arrangements that eliminate or restrict competition, and from imposing unreasonable trading conditions on counterparties. SAMR's decision treats Trip.com's exclusivity-driven design as falling squarely within those prohibitions.

The agency ordered the company to cease the offending conduct immediately.

How has Trip.com responded?

Trip.com said it accepts the decision and will implement the regulator's requirements. Chief Executive Officer Jane Sun told investors on a conference call that the company is pivoting to what she called "a more transparent, balanced and sustainable" partnership model with hotels.

"We remain firmly committed to operating in accordance with applicable laws and regulations," Sun said. "While supporting the long-term development of China's travel industry, we believe that a healthy, open and high-quality ecosystem will create lasting value."

Sun also framed the ruling as constructive. "We view this moment not as a disruption but as an opportunity to further strengthen our business," she said. "It marks an important milestone as we continue to refine our operating model and ensure it remains aligned with China's evolving regulatory and industry environment."

What changes for hotel partners?

SAMR's order requires Trip.com to:

• Stop enforcing exclusivity-encouraging rules on hotel partners
• Refund approximately US$18 million in deducted security deposits
• Surrender roughly US$244.4 million in confiscated gains
• Pay the US$518.9 million administrative fine

Hotels that previously felt locked into single-platform arrangements now have a regulator-backed path to multi-platform distribution.

What does the ruling change for practitioners?

The decision signals that SAMR will treat platform-level design choices—ranking algorithms, traffic allocation, and partner-rule structures—as substantive abuse when they coerce exclusivity. Counsel advising Chinese digital platforms should expect examiners to map each technical control against Article 22(4) and 22(5).

The 7.5% sales-based fine sits at the upper end of the statutory range under Article 63 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, which permits penalties of 1% to 10% of prior-year revenue. Practitioners should read the figure as a benchmark for cases involving dominant platforms with documented exclusive-conduct schemes.

Where does Trip.com go from here?

Trip.com stated it is refining its pricing ecosystem, increasing transparency around partner policies, and strengthening its antitrust compliance management system. The company did not announce an appeal.

The ruling lands as one of the largest antitrust penalties ever imposed on a global online travel company and reinforces SAMR's pattern of action against dominant digital platforms in China. For competition lawyers, the case offers a concrete roadmap of how Chinese regulators quantify harm, allocate confiscation versus fine, and couple monetary penalties with behavioral remedies.