European low-cost carrier Ryanair has been fined €256 million by the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) today (December 23). The airline was quick to state that it has "instructed its lawyers to immediately appeal” the decision.
Ryanair described the ruling as “bizarre” and “unsound”, and also argued that it contradicts a previous ruling from January 2024 by the Milan Court, which upheld Ryanair's direct distribution model.
The January 2024 ruling found that the model is “justified in terms of continuing operating costs and eliminating the costs associated with intermediation in ticket sales”.
At the time, online travel agents (OTAs) Lastminute and Viggiare had claimed Ryanair's model abused its dominant position in the market.
The Milan Court determined that Ryanair’s exclusive online ticket sales model “has contributed to the application of competitive fares and to the possibility of having a direct channel of communication with them for any possible need for information and updates on flights,” concluding that “no harm to users” was established.
The AGCM, however, found that Ryanair has “implemented an abusive strategy to hinder travel agencies relying on Ryanair flights”, adding that the airline has abused its “dominant position” in Italy's air travel market.
“If today's legally unsound AGCM ruling and fine is not appealed, then the AGCM proposes to set itself above the Milan courts in making competition decisions,” said Ryanair Group CEO Michael O'Leary.
“Ryanair has fought for many years for transparent pricing, and our approved OTA agreements (which have been agreed by almost every large OTA, with the notable exception of one Spanish OTA, who continues to overcharge its customers for flights and ancillary services) are manifestly and clearly pro-consumer.”
Ryanair has frequently criticised Spanish OTA eDreams Odigeo for overcharging consumers. The airline appealed a decision from a Barcelona court earlier this year that had ruled in favour of eDreams' claims that Ryanair had engaged in uncompetitive practices.
AGCM said the practices related to today's ruling began in April 2023 and continued “at least” until April 2025.
“The AGCM's baseless efforts to redefine a period of time after the Milan Court ruling, and to wrongly claim that Ryanair has a dominant position in air services to/from Italy, will be overturned,” Ryanair said in a statement. “This ruling and fine are legally unsound, and will be overturned on appeal.”
Ryanair claimed that it held a “non-dominant” share of the Italian market at just over 30%, adding that the AGCM had excluded both long-haul air travel and short-haul air access to a number of other countries so that it could “invent this claim that Ryanair holds a dominant position”. The airline also highlighted other modes of transport that compete with Ryanair's position.
“Following a complex investigation, the Authority found that Ryanair put in place an elaborate strategy affecting the ability of online and traditional travel agencies to purchase Ryanair flights on ryanair.com," AGCM said.
“In particular, the company's strategy blocked, hindered or made such purchases more difficult and/or economically or technically burdensome.”
During the investigation period, the authority found strategies to include facial recognition for agency customers, blocking or disputing OTA bookings, and deleting OTA-linked accounts.
The authority also highlighted a Ryanair campaign to attack OTAs that had not partnered with the airline by labelling them as ‘OTA pirates’.
However, Ryanair then launched a solution for OTAs that enabled the integration of OTA IT applications in April 2025.
AGCM said that this solution could, “if properly implemented, make it possible to restore effective competition in the downstream market for tourism services”.
Therefore, the Authority concluded that the period of “abusive” practices ran until the introduction of these solutions.
“Ryanair could and did in fact hinder travel agencies' sales and affect OTAs' ability to attract internet traffic,” AGCM said.
O'Leary said Ryanair “looks forward to successfully overturning” the ruling and the “absurd” fine in court, claiming that the AGCM “cannot be trusted” to protect competition laws or consumers.