Italy’s competition authority has imposed one of the largest fines in the history of the country’s aviation sector on low-cost carrier Ryanair. According to the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM), the airline abused its dominant market position, resulting in a penalty exceeding €255 million.
According to the regulator, the disputed practices occurred from April 2023 to at least April 2025 and involved the systematic obstruction of travel agencies, particularly online intermediaries. The AGCM claims that Ryanair blocked or restricted users’ ability to purchase tickets via its website when attempting to book flights through agencies, especially when those flights were part of combined itineraries with other airlines or included additional services.
The Italian authority described this conduct as an “abusive strategy” aimed at reducing competition and forcing agencies into partnership agreements with Ryanair. Measures cited in the ruling include the introduction of facial recognition procedures for users who purchased tickets through travel agencies, the partial or total blocking of booking attempts, the disabling of certain payment methods, and the mass deletion of user accounts linked to online travel agencies. According to the AGCM, these practices increased costs for consumers and weakened competition.
The regulator further stated that Ryanair intensified the pressure through an aggressive communication campaign against agencies that refused to sign partnership agreements, publicly branding them as “pirate OTAs,” while booking blocks were allegedly used as a tool to “persuade” agencies to cooperate.
Ryanair responded sharply and announced it would appeal the decision. In a statement, the airline said it has long promoted direct ticket sales through its own website to offer consumers the lowest possible fares. It also referred to a ruling by the Milan Court in January 2024, which found that the direct distribution model clearly benefits consumers. Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary described the fine as legally baseless and absurd, arguing that it undermines consumer protection and competition law and will be overturned on appeal.
