Hamburg Regional Court found that eDreams displayed airline seat and baggage prices without clearly disclosing its own additional fees, and that its claimed savings through its “Prime” service could not actually be achieved by consumers.

In its rulings, the court stated that eDreams’ “price display for seat reservations without disclosing the additional fee… is in any case misleading” and further noted that this constituted “a misleading practice by omission”.

Regarding checked baggage, the court found eDreams had been “misleading about the service fee”, and in relation to its Prime product the court held “the announcement of the concrete savings… represents a misrepresentation… since the specifically stated savings cannot actually be achieved [by consumers]”.

The Irish budget airline welcomed the rulings against eDreams, which it said had not followed rivals Booking.com, Lastminute and Kiwi in adopting Ryanair’s price transparency standards.

Spokesperson Dara Brady said: “These Hamburg court decisions reinforce what Ryanair has long advocated – transparent pricing for consumers. Despite Ryanair’s repeated objections, eDreams continues to scrape our fares and overcharge consumers.

“eDreams remains the only large OTA that refuses to follow the transparency standards already adopted by Booking.com, Lastminute, Kiwi and others.

“Ryanair has offered to provide eDreams with free, direct access to Ryanair’s inventory – should they wish to compete on a level playing field — if/when they adopt the same transparency standards as their main OTA competitors, and desist from ‘misleading’ or overcharging consumers.”

A spokesperson for eDreams ODIGEO said: “The difference is simple: when a court requests a minor change to a display layout, we respond and engage constructively.

“In contrast, when a court orders Ryanair to stop abusive anti-consumer practices, they refuse, are fined for ‘bad faith’, and ignore the court mandates. That is the only ‘misleading’ behaviour here. 

“Now that Ryanair claims to ‘welcome’ German rulings, we expect them to finally comply with the standing orders they are currently defying – disobedience for which they have just been fined.”