The State Administration for Market Regulation said the probe was launched after a preliminary review, in accordance with China's Anti-Monopoly Law.
The State Administration for Market Regulation of China (SAMR) on Wednesday said the group – operator of namesake platform Trip.com, Skyscanner, Ctrip, Qunar and Dutch site Travix – abused its “dominant market position” and engaged in “monopolistic practices”.
The investigation was launched after a preliminary inquiry into the firm’s operations, according to the SAMR. The agency didn’t offer specifics in a one-line statement on its website.
Trip.com said in a statement it will cooperate with the investigation. The company’s Hong Kong shares dived 6.5%.
The SAMR’s probe was announced just ahead of typically the busiest period for Chinese travel, the days-long Lunar New Year break. Millions are expected to take advantage of visa relaxations to head abroad, though the majority of Chinese prefer domestic trips.
Trip.com accounted for nearly half of the mainland outbound travel market in 2024, according to consultancy Dragon Trail International. Trip.com It has few rivals of comparable size, though units of Alibaba, Meituan and ByteDance offer competing services such as flights and hotels.
The country’s travelers are expected to make about 165 million to 175 million cross-border trips this year, surpassing pre-pandemic levels, according to consultancy China Trading Desk.
Scrutiny of the sector has been growing for months: regional regulators had earlier summoned major platforms to discuss potential violations, while an industry association in Yunnan province publicly complained that Trip.com was abusing its dominant market position.
In November 2025, SAMR released a draft set of antitrust compliance guidelines for internet platforms for public consultation. The document refers to eight emerging monopoly risks, including cases where some platforms force merchants to keep prices no higher than on rivals - so-called "lowest-price-across-the-internet" rules. SAMR stated that such practices, as well as demands for exclusive cooperation (the so-called “either-or” choice requirement), may amount to abuse of market dominance or monopoly deals.
Sources: Bloomberg, Global Times
