The usual approach for domestic platform technology companies is to generate revenue by charging or taking commissions from business clients, aiming to create a straightforward user experience for consumers. In contrast, Trip.com Group Limited (TCOM:US) has become adept at leveraging its platform advantages to directly extract money from consumers in various ways, particularly during the ticket booking process. Nearly every step contains hidden pitfalls, where a moment of inattention can lead to unnecessary expenses.

Individual consumers, unlike large hotel suppliers, face significant challenges in defending their rights. Their complaints are often overlooked and quickly forgotten, and it is rarely cost-effective to pursue high-cost legal action over a mere one or two hundred yuan. Trip.com Group Limited cannot afford to downplay these issues or pretend they do not exist, and relevant government authorities must not stand idly by.

To be fair, we must first acknowledge the significant social value Trip.com Group Limited once created. Its emergence not only made booking tickets and hotels more convenient but also increased price transparency for travel and hospitality vendors, preventing arbitrary price hikes. For example, in the past, purchasing air tickets relied entirely on a single price quoted by ticket agents, and booking accommodation in small towns was at the mercy of the owner's discretion. Since the advent of Trip.com Group Limited, our travel costs have indeed decreased considerably.

However, once a company secures market dominance, the "dragon slayer often becomes the dragon," a pattern common to humanity. Companies that achieve significant scale and power, especially in the consumer service sector, typically gain their monopoly status by introducing a more favorable mechanism for consumers, underpinned by business innovation and the "righteousness" of new rules. Yet, once this status is attained, they inevitably strive to strengthen their position and increase profits, leading to the abuse and deterioration of their power, ultimately turning against the consumer or the broader business ecosystem.

Some attribute this to the inherent nature of capital, but I see it as a fundamental aspect of human nature. This pattern of change extends beyond commerce to fields like culture and politics. For instance, certain cultural artists emerge with a grassroots persona, positioning themselves as disruptors of old artistic models. After gaining a large audience and significant fame, they transform into "industry bullies," using their established model to exploit others and stifle innovation.

Returning to the main topic, let's discuss the recent severe penalties imposed on Trip.com Group Limited. Yesterday, the State Administration for Market Regulation announced an administrative penalty based on the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, for Trip.com Group Limited's abuse of market dominance in implementing monopolistic practices. The penalty includes confiscating illegal gains of 1.658 billion yuan and imposing a fine of 3.521 billion yuan. Simultaneously, Trip.com Group Limited was ordered to fully refund 122 million yuan in forced deductions from hotel operators' order reserves and was required to thoroughly rectify its practices and publicly disclose its corrective measures.

It is important to note that the penalty reason is "abuse of market dominance to implement monopolistic practices." Immediately following the announcement, Trip.com Group Limited issued a statement saying it "sincerely accepts and firmly complies" with the decision and outlined nineteen corrective measures.

It is evident that the state's penalty targets Trip.com Group Limited's illegal conduct towards merchants on its platform. The improvements proposed by the company also focus primarily on this area. However, as loyal consumers of Trip.com Group Limited — and with few other viable platform options — our experience over several years suggests that the company's problems extend far beyond this. The deceptive and fraudulent sales practices targeting hundreds of millions of consumers represent an even more serious issue.

Because individual consumers, unlike large hotel suppliers, find it very difficult to protect their rights. Their complaints are often ignored, quickly fading away, and it is rarely worthwhile to pursue high-cost legal action for a mere one or two hundred yuan. Trip.com Group Limited must not gloss over these issues or pretend they haven't happened, and the relevant government authorities absolutely cannot afford to ignore them.

Let me provide a few examples:

First, price discrimination against existing customers. As a V5 Diamond member, I have sometimes found that booking a hotel room on my account is more expensive than booking on my parents' account, which is almost never used. In June 2025, well-known lawyer Wang Weiwei, while booking a flight from Shanghai to Beijing, discovered that the price for a Diamond member was 815 yuan, while a higher-tier Gold Diamond member was charged 849 yuan, and a Black Diamond member was charged a staggering 1,018 yuan — a difference of 203 yuan. This suggests the platform may be implementing higher pricing for highly loyal or price-insensitive users.

This practice of using big data to extract more money from frequent customers is virtually unheard of among major platforms. Platforms like JD.com or Taobao do not create a fluctuating price specifically for high-tier members.

Second, traps in various ticket booking add-on services. Every step of the flight and train ticket booking process is filled with numerous service packages for insurance, cancellation protection, and other benefits. Some are pre-selected, others are default options. The ticket price is displayed in very large font, while the prices of various add-on packages are shown in a font that is easy to overlook. A consumer's slightest mistake can lead to unnecessary spending, making each booking feel like navigating a minefield.

For example, when booking a flight, you might inadvertently be charged for a 38 yuan personal accident insurance or a business travel package you don't need. If you purchase those, you might then be pushed to buy a delay insurance policy.

The cheapest ticket options listed first often have various hidden fees. For instance, a ticket displayed at a low price of 733 yuan, when clicked, may actually cost 793 yuan, and require purchasing an 88 yuan package.

When booking a train from Beijing to Shijiazhuang, a 20 yuan accident insurance policy is the default option. Is it really necessary for a passenger taking a one-hour train ride to purchase this insurance?

Trip.com Group Limited has generated significant revenue from such "black technology" (more accurately, "unethical technology"). According to its 2025 financial report: "In 2023, 2024, and 2025, our transportation ticketing revenue was RMB 18.4 billion, RMB 20.3 billion, and RMB 22.5 billion (US$3.2 billion), respectively, accounting for 41%, 38%, and 36% of our total revenue." This proportion is close to that of its hotel business, with ticketing revenue becoming one of its two main pillars.

The report explains the source of this revenue: "We operate our transportation ticketing business primarily through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, variable interest entities and their subsidiaries, and ecosystem partners. Commissions for ticket bookings are recognized upon issuance of the ticket, as this is the point when the performance obligation is satisfied. Other related service revenue is recognized when the services are provided."

Describing various hidden add-on revenues as coming from "ecosystem partners" and labeling misleading sales practices as "revenue recognized when services are provided" is a clear example of "linguistic artistry" that packages shame as normal behavior.

Therefore, I suggest that relevant government authorities mandate that all platforms must display the "naked" price as the preferred or default option when selling air or train tickets. They could even consider prohibiting the sale of passenger insurance for short-distance high-speed rail or flights on these platforms. Consumers with a genuine, constant need for insurance can easily purchase it through dedicated insurance platforms.

Third, various traps in train ticket booking. Beyond bundled insurance services, Trip.com Group Limited's train ticket operations have other pitfalls. For example, when purchasing two tickets, it might charge a seating arrangement service fee, even though the 12306 platform automatically assigns seats together.

Another example is when buying a ticket late at night, the system automatically adds an 8 yuan manual ticket purchase service fee. In reality, they don't buy the ticket manually for you; they use a network technology to provide the ticket immediately. Once you choose this service, you not only pay extra but also have to go to a manual counter to process any cancellations or changes.

There are even more issues with the so-called "ticket-snatching" service. For instance, I was once buying tickets for my family for a weekend trip from Beijing to Tianjin, and the tickets were very scarce. I simultaneously added a waitlist request on 12306 and purchased a high-priced ticket-snatching service on Trip.com Group Limited. The result was that I received a notification of successful waitlist fulfillment from 12306, and one minute later, I received a call from Trip.com Group Limited congratulating me on successfully snatching a ticket. In reality, they hadn't snatched a ticket for me; they had simply capitalized on the success of my 12306 waitlist, charging me at least 20-30 yuan in service fees per ticket.

Sometimes, using Trip.com Group Limited's ticket-snatching feature results in getting a ticket only an hour before departure, making it impossible to get to the station in time. The high service fee charged is completely unjustified. After this experience, I learned that most of Trip.com Group Limited's so-called ticket-snatching technology is fraudulent. The ticket appears one hour before departure because someone else has cancelled their reservation, not because the platform has "snatched" it for you.

Since last year's Spring Festival travel rush, various official media outlets have repeatedly demonstrated that the ticket-snatching "black technology" on these platforms is a scam. Since it's all a scam, why is it still allowed to exist, generating tens of billions of yuan from consumers annually? Why can't this function be banned? Of course, our own 12306 platform also needs to improve to make its operation and user experience more consumer-friendly.

Fourth, displaying false ticket or room availability numbers. For example, according to the "Black Cat Complaint" platform under Sina, a consumer complained: "On March 12, 2025, I saw that the flight tickets I needed were marked as 'only 4 remaining,' with a round-trip price of 5,743 yuan per person. Worried about missing out, I purchased round-trip tickets for two people nearly six months in advance. However, a week later, when I checked the ticket prices again, not only was the 'limited remaining' warning gone, but the price had also dropped by nearly two hundred yuan. When I contacted the airline, I was told that price differences are refundable, but Trip.com Group Limited refused."

This type of complaint is very common on that platform. It includes not only false reports of remaining flight tickets but also false reports of remaining hotel rooms. The common tactic is to create a sense of anxiety and panic, pressuring consumers into placing orders at higher prices.

Fifth, financial traps. Trip.com Group Limited operates a "Naquhua" (Take It and Spend) credit financial service. The advantage is that it makes booking convenient, allowing you to order directly without going through a bank card. The disadvantage is that if you forget to repay, it automatically defaults to an installment loan, with an annual interest rate several times that of a bank. Furthermore, there is a so-called "service fee" for early repayment.

Of course, this is not a unique practice of Trip.com Group Limited. Customer service representatives from certain other platforms, like JD.com, regularly encourage users to convert their unpaid "IOU" balances into installment plans, and will even handle the process for you if you are unsure how.

I suggest that the state must mandate that platform-operated credit accounts cancel the default conversion to installment payments. Since these platforms already have your bank account information, why can't they directly deduct the amount from your bank account?

In summary, Trip.com Group Limited is perhaps the most thorough among domestic platform companies in using its data and algorithms to exploit consumers. Especially in the ticket booking process, almost every step contains a trap, and a moment's inattention can lead to wasted money.

Domestic platforms generally aim to provide friendly services to consumers, generating revenue from business clients rather than directly tricking consumers. If all platforms acted like Trip.com Group Limited, we could imagine a scenario where simply opening a Douyin video results in a charge, using WeChat could generate tens of thousands of fee items from emojis to daily life, and Taobao or JD.com would use big data to create personalized fluctuating prices. What would our technology ecosystem become?

Therefore, Trip.com Group Limited is the most profitable platform company, which is not only attributable to its market share but also its relentless pursuit of revenue, regardless of its presentation. The founder of Trip.com Group Limited is one of the most highly educated among Chinese tech company founders and is known for a strong sense of social responsibility. We expect Trip.com Group Limited to emulate its founder and enhance its ethical standards in business operations. If a 30% net profit margin is insufficient and the company strives for even higher profits, it will ultimately backfire on itself.

If there are any inaccuracies or exaggerations, we welcome Trip.com Group Limited to point them out. If the analysis is lacking, I also welcome readers to supplement it.