Analysis of User Trust Reconstruction Strategies for Fliggy After Bundled Sales Issues

Based on the information searched, I now prepare a professional analysis report for you.

---

On August 5, 2025, the Guizhou Provincial Administration for Market Regulation collectively summoned five online travel platforms including Ctrip, Tongcheng, Meituan, and Fliggy for a talk, pointing directly to potential behaviors such as “forced exclusive cooperation”, using technical means to interfere with merchant pricing, price fraud, and abuse of market dominant position [1][2]. The talk required the platforms to immediately conduct self-inspections and rectifications, prohibit price fraud, price gouging, and price collusion, and strictly ban illegal acts such as implementing unfair high prices and restricted transactions by abusing market dominant position.

On the Black Cat Complaint platform, the total number of complaints containing the keyword “Fliggy” exceeds 116,000, covering aspects such as bundled consumption, false advertising, refund difficulties, platform price adjustments, and appeals for difference compensation [3]. This data reflects that the systemic problems in Fliggy’s user services have attracted widespread attention.

Based on consumer complaints and media reports, the bundled sales problems existing on the Fliggy platform are mainly reflected in the following aspects:

: When consumers book flights, the platform pre-checks additional services such as “travel voucher packages” by default, resulting in an actual payment amount often higher than the ticket price itself. For example, some consumers reported paying 1,238 yuan for a flight ticket, while the actual fare set by the airline was only 1,030 yuan; the extra 208 yuan was the fee for value-added services bundled by the platform [4].

: Some consumers were issued “travel service fee” invoices instead of electronic air ticket itineraries without their knowledge, which led to rejection of reimbursement by company finance departments, forcing consumers to bear the extra costs themselves [4].

: Merchants reported that the platform unilaterally modified room prices through background algorithms, and the “Price Adjustment Assistant” function could automatically adjust the hotel’s listed price without authorization. Merchants often encountered repeated rejections when applying to disable this function [1][2].

As an online travel platform under Alibaba Group, Fliggy relies on super traffic portals such as Taobao and Alipay, and has more than 320 million member resources [5]. However, the platform’s profit model relies excessively on commission income and the promotion of value-added services, leading to the acquiescence or even encouragement of behaviors such as bundled sales under KPI pressure. There is a fundamental conflict between this “volume-oriented” business logic and user experience.

From an industry perspective, the explicit base commission rate for OTA (Online Travel Agency) platforms is approximately 10%-15%, but merchants need to pay additional hidden fees to obtain better traffic exposure positions, resulting in comprehensive commission expenses possibly reaching close to 40% [6]. Under the pressure of high commissions, the platform tends to increase revenue sources through methods such as bundled sales, further exacerbating conflicts with consumers and merchants.

The core issue with bundled sales is the systematic infringement of consumers’ right to know and right to choose. In accordance with the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and the E-Commerce Law, consumers have the right to independently choose goods or services, and operators shall not force the bundling of goods or services. However, through methods such as pre-checked options, hidden prompts, and small pop-ups, the platform causes consumers to purchase unnecessary value-added services without their awareness. Such behavior not only violates laws and regulations, but also seriously damages the foundation of users’ trust in the platform. When consumers realize they have “been charged without consent”, negative word-of-mouth spreads rapidly through social media, forming a multiplier effect of the trust crisis.

Since 2025, the state has significantly strengthened supervision over the platform economy. In September 2025, the General Office of the State Council issued a notice clearly requiring online travel platforms not to infringe on tourists’ rights and interests through behaviors such as “implementing price discrimination against repeat users via big data”, false advertising, and bundled sales [1][2]. The revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China launched in 2025 has included typical “involutionary” behaviors such as platforms forcing merchants to sell below cost and abusing rules to conduct fake transactions into its regulatory scope [1][2]. In December 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation clearly stated at a national work conference that in 2026, it will “strengthen anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition law enforcement, and thoroughly rectify ‘involutionary’ competition” [1][2]. Against this background, Fliggy is facing not only the pressure of rectification from a single regulatory talk, but also the urgent requirement for transformation of the entire industry’s development model.

: Fliggy should immediately establish a rectification work group led by senior executives, comprehensively sort out the platform’s existing problems in accordance with regulatory requirements, and formulate a clear timeline and responsibility list. The work group should regularly report the progress of rectification to regulatory authorities and the public to demonstrate its sincerity in rectification.

: For consumers harmed by behaviors such as bundled sales, Fliggy can establish a special compensation fund, proactively screen historical orders, and provide refunds or compensation to eligible consumers. Although this measure will increase costs in the short term, it can effectively repair user trust.

: On product booking pages, all pre-checked value-added service options must be removed; all additional services can only be added after consumers actively check them. At the same time, prompt information such as “This price does not include any value-added services” should be prominently displayed in the price display area to ensure consumers are fully informed before making payment.

: Fliggy should gradually reduce its reliance on commission income and explore diversified profit models such as membership subscriptions, corporate services, and customized outbound travel services. For example, referring to Amazon Prime’s membership system, Fliggy can launch a Super Membership service, providing benefits such as exclusive discounts, priority booking, and free ticket changes, to achieve revenue growth through value-added services rather than bundled sales.

: Cancel the “forced exclusive cooperation” exclusivity clauses and restore merchants’ right to independent pricing. Establish a transparent traffic distribution algorithm so that merchants can obtain reasonable exposure opportunities without paying extra fees. At the same time, set a cap on commission rates to prevent excessive commission deductions from eroding merchants’ profit margins.

: Invite third-party institutions such as consumer organizations, industry experts, and media to conduct regular supervision and evaluation of the platform’s behaviors. Establish a quarterly transparency report system to publicly disclose key information such as commission rate adjustments, complaint handling results, and the implementation of rectification measures.

: Utilize big data and artificial intelligence technologies to provide users with truly valuable personalized travel recommendations, rather than sales-oriented services based on information asymmetry. Technology should serve to improve user experience, rather than being a tool to “exploit users”.

: In the fierce market competition, Ctrip has occupied approximately 72% of the market share [7]. If Fliggy wants to break through, it must establish a differentiated competitive advantage. It is recommended that Fliggy focus on young user groups, deepen its presence in niche markets such as outbound travel, theme travel, and characteristic homestays, and win users through high-quality services rather than price tricks.

: Incorporate consumer rights protection and merchant empowerment into the corporate core values, and release social responsibility reports regularly. Fliggy can collaborate with industry associations to promote the formulation of online travel service standards, shifting from passive compliance to actively leading the construction of industry norms.

: The foundation of trust reconstruction lies in the management’s re-understanding of business logic. The value of the platform does not lie in short-term revenue maximization, but in building a sustainable ecosystem that achieves win-win outcomes for consumers, merchants, and the platform itself. The senior management team should regularly participate in front-line customer service work to gain in-depth understanding of user pain points.

: Include indicators such as user satisfaction, complaint rate, and refund rate in the performance appraisal of management and front-line employees, with a weight no lower than that of revenue indicators. Through fundamental changes to the incentive mechanism, promote a shift of all staff from a “sales-oriented mindset” to a “service-oriented mindset”.

: Encourage internal employees to proactively discover and report behaviors that harm user interests, and reward employees who put forward effective improvement suggestions. Cultivate a corporate culture atmosphere where employees dare to face problems squarely and correct mistakes quickly.

Fliggy should join hands with major platforms such as Ctrip, Meituan, and Tongcheng to jointly initiate a self-regulation convention for the online travel industry, committing to canceling bundled sales, prohibiting “forced exclusive cooperation”, and protecting merchants’ pricing rights, among other things. Industry self-regulation is not only a response to regulatory pressure, but also a rational choice to safeguard the long-term development of the industry.

Proactively access the platform economy monitoring system established by regulatory authorities, and report core data such as commission rates, price changes, and complaint handling in real time. Through data sharing, help regulatory authorities identify and prevent illegal behaviors more accurately, demonstrating the platform’s willingness to comply with regulations.

Cooperate with consumer associations and media to carry out popularization activities on online travel consumption knowledge, helping users identify and prevent consumption traps. At the same time, establish convenient user feedback channels to encourage users to supervise the platform’s behaviors, forming a pattern of social co-governance.

Fliggy being summoned for a regulatory talk due to bundled sales issues is both a crisis and an opportunity. Currently, users’ trust in online travel platforms is generally under pressure, and the industry is facing a transition point from unregulated growth to standardized development. If Fliggy can take this opportunity to completely abandon short-sighted behaviors that harm user interests and carry out systematic reforms in multiple dimensions such as business model, organizational culture, and technology application, it can not only repair damaged user trust, but also gain a first-mover advantage in the industry reshuffle.

Trust reconstruction is a long-term process that requires the platform to demonstrate sufficient sincerity and patience. The increase in costs and decline in revenue in the short term are necessary costs; in the long run, user trust is the platform’s core competitive barrier. As an old saying goes, “He who wins the people’s hearts wins the world”. In the field of the platform economy, those who win user trust can move forward steadily and far.

[1] 21st Century Business Herald - “Targeting ‘Anti-Involution’: Ctrip Filed for Investigation by the State Administration for Market Regulation” (https://www.21jingji.com/article/20260114/herald/c586d9e945470e7b229deacdfd30b794.html)

[2] Sina Finance - “Forcing ‘Forced Exclusive Cooperation’, Seizing Pricing Power: Ctrip Investigated for Anti-Monopoly for ‘Exploiting’ Merchants” (https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/marketresearch/2026-01-16/doc-inhhnuux3965879.shtml)

[3] Data Statistics from Black Cat Complaint Platform

[4] NetEase News - “Another Giant Exposed! The Industry’s Dark Secrets Are Fully Revealed” (https://www.163.com/dy/article/KJG5JDHR05568181.html)

[5] Baidu Baike - “Fliggy” (https://baike.baidu.com/item/飞猪/8957901)

[6] Relevant Reports from Southern Metropolis Daily

[7] Caifuhao - “Comprehensive Breach of the Triple Bottom Line: Who Is Warned by Ctrip’s Investigation?” (https://caifuhao.eastmoney.com/news/20260115110815026428380)