POSTED BY Samantha Caplan
As the online travel reservation market has grown over the past several years, so, too, have the number of theories for getting the best deals. A basic internet search reveals countless how-to guides and consumer tips (e.g., purchasing tickets on Tuesday afternoons, booking reservations six weeks in advance, et al.), some of which even cite statistics and studies to support the recommendations. One popular technique is to clear one’s internet browsing history and cookies before searching for fares; proponents argue that a travel website will quote a higher price for travel arrangements for which it “remembers” a person to have searched previously.
It is beyond my present intent (and means) to try to prove or debunk this cookie-clearing theory. For those interested, there are several blogs and articles featuring attempts by consumers to do so, all of which have been published in an uphill battle against a pretty consistent industry stance. Allegations of price discrimination in the online marketplace are not new; however, when one recalls the outrage of Amazon.com customers in 2000 and those of other online retailers found to be charging different prices for different customers, it’s not difficult to imagine why there seems to be such little open discourse with companies about the practice. Concerning proof of this practice in online airline reservations, the question seems to remain unresolved; however, if the Business Travel Coalition (“BTC”) and other opponents of Resolution 787 are to be believed, this myth-busting debate could soon become moot.
According to the International Air Transportation Association (“IATA”), who has been seeking US Department of Transportation approval of Resolution 787 since it was first drafted and adopted by the trade group in fall 2012, Resolution 787 would foster more dynamic relationships between airlines and consumers, providing customers with a uniformly personalized booking experience, regardless of the intermediary distributor (e.g., travel reservation website) used.
On the one hand, this initiative purports to increase transparency for consumers, for example, by enabling customers to view and compare the availability and costs of different airlines’ à la carte amenities and upgrades on intermediary distributors’ websites. On the other hand, BTC and other opponents warn that this “personalized experience” would be achieved by all distributors requiring customers to provide certain personal data prior to generating search results. Ultimately, consumer advocates are concerned that airlines and distributors would discriminately set prices based on customers’ profiles and, further, that under Resolution 787‘s uniformity principle, customers would no longer have the ability to comparison shop between different distributors (because all distributors would have access to the same profile data).
Whichever side one favors, this debate is worth following. With the involvement of the DOT in its consideration of Resolution 787, perhaps cookie-clearing travelers and curious law students, at last, will find answers: are airlines and online travel companies charging fares based on customers’ personal data, and, if so, what legal boundaries are there (or will there be) to limit this practice?
