Brand hijacking: the predatory OTAs intercepting direct hotel bookings

When a traveller types a hotel’s exact name into a search engine, it looks like a direct booking is on the way. Yet the top results can sometimes point to an intermediary that has positioned itself on that precise query. A study by hotel technology specialist Operto, State of Predatory OTAs 2026, highlights the trend.

These operators bid in Google auctions on hotel brand names to appear among the search engine’s sponsored results.

To reinforce the appearance of legitimacy, some mimic the hotel’s visual identity, leading visitors to believe they are booking directly with the property.

Payment is taken by the intermediary, which processes the request as an OTA would, and guest details are often masked so the hotel cannot contact the customer directly.

These “predatory OTAs”, as the study describes them, can earn commission for a service that is invisible to the guest and corresponds to a reservation the hotel might otherwise have captured itself.

To ensure bookings complete, some hide the mark‑ups they apply - leaving the guest unaware of the share that reaches the property - and make cancellations harder.

The study names leading players engaged in this practic.: GuestReservations.com ran around 540,000 ads between 22 May-21 June 2026, ReservationDesk.com about 240,000, and BookOnline.com roughly 90,000.

“The challenge for hoteliers is visibility,” said Tim Major, CEO of Operto.

“A general manager might search for their property from the front desk, see nothing unusual and reasonably conclude there’s no problem, while a customer hundreds of miles away is served completely different results.

“Hotels need to understand who is advertising against their brand, how much direct demand is slipping through these channels, and what it is costing them.”

The trend is global. Operto counts roughly 1.1 million predatory ads targeting 204,000 unique hotels across 205 countries, and the practice is not new.

As far back as 2017, US competition authorities examined the issue and sanctioned Reservation Counter; the Federal Trade Commission found the firm was not introducing travellers to hotels, as Booking.com or Expedia would, but intercepting customers at the last moment.

No financial penalty was imposed, but Reservation Counter was required to clarify its status as an intermediary and to stop using hotel names and logos in a misleading way.

Operto urges hoteliers to strengthen their own brand presence on search engines and to deploy brand‑monitoring across third‑party sites.