Italy Investigates easyJet Baggage Pricing Practices

Italy’s competition authority, the AGCM, has launched a formal investigation into easyJet’s baggage pricing and booking practices. The probe centers on allegations that the airline’s website and app may mislead customers by defaulting to bundled baggage options for round trips and displaying average prices. This approach could potentially inflate costs for passengers who only need luggage for one leg of their journey.

The AGCM is examining whether easyJet’s booking system pressures customers into purchasing additional services. Passengers who wish to select luggage for only one direction of a round trip must actively interrupt the standard booking flow to change the pre-selected default settings. This design choice is at the core of the investigation, as it may obscure the true cost of specific travel segments.

easyJet has stated its intention to cooperate fully with the AGCM and maintains that its practices align with consumer protection regulations. The airline has not yet announced any changes to how baggage options are presented on its booking platforms. This situation highlights the growing regulatory focus on ancillary revenues, which airlines collect for services beyond the basic airfare.

Bundled Baggage and Default Settings Under Scrutiny

The AGCM’s investigation is not solely focused on the price of checked baggage or sports equipment. Instead, it is examining the presentation of these charges and whether default options steer customers toward unnecessary purchases. The authority is particularly concerned that displaying an average price for baggage on a round trip might mask the actual cost for each individual flight segment.

A key aspect of the probe involves how round-trip bookings are handled. If checked baggage and sports equipment are pre-selected as defaults for both outbound and inbound flights, a passenger needing luggage for only one direction would have to manually alter this setting. This process requires interrupting the typical booking sequence, which could be confusing or inconvenient for travelers.

The use of an average price display is also a point of concern. This practice can combine charges for different flight segments into a single figure. This makes it more difficult for customers to accurately assess whether the cost of adding baggage is justified for the specific trip they are undertaking. Italian consumer protection laws aim to prevent commercial practices that distort consumer choice or mislead buyers about prices and product features. The AGCM appears to be investigating whether easyJet’s default settings and average price displays violate these principles in the context of baggage fees.

Comparison to UK Advertising Standards Authority Ruling

The Italian investigation into easyJet’s baggage practices follows a separate ruling by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA had previously banned easyJet from using the claim that large cabin bags were available “from GBP5.99.” This decision was based on the airline’s inability to provide sufficient evidence that this low price was consistently available across various routes and dates. A separate investigation cited in the ASA ruling found that the lowest price for a large cabin bag among 520 easyJet flights was actually GBP23.49, with an average price of GBP30.

While both the Italian AGCM probe and the UK ASA ruling address concerns about airline pricing transparency, they focus on different aspects. The ASA ruling dealt with the verifiability of specific advertised claims in marketing materials. In contrast, the AGCM is concentrating on the design of the booking process itself, including default options and how fare components are presented to customers during booking. These distinct but related issues underscore a broader regulatory concern about how airlines generate revenue from ancillary services without crossing consumer protection guidelines. The UK ruling questioned the accuracy of a headline fare claim, while the Italian investigation is examining whether the booking path nudges passengers toward higher spending.