AirAsia Move banned over price gouging

[WORLD] The Philippine government has initiated legal action against AirAsia’s online travel platform, AirAsia Move, for allegedly inflating airfare prices during a transportation crisis in Tacloban. Transportation Secretary Vince Dizon announced a cease-and-desist order and plans to file an economic sabotage case this week after lawmakers reported paying ₱77,704 ($1,392) for two Philippine Airlines tickets booked through the platform—nearly double the direct airline price. The crackdown follows complaints that the platform exploited limited road access caused by the partial closure of San Juanico Bridge, a critical link for goods and passengers in Eastern Visayas.

Authorities accused AirAsia Move of selling one-way tickets at three times the standard rate, with Dizon calling the pricing “absurd and criminal”. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) has directed the Philippine National Police’s Anti-Cybercrime Group to take down the platform’s website to prevent further consumer harm. While AirAsia claims its airline operations are separate from the booking service, the DOTr has expanded investigations into other online travel agencies suspected of similar practices.

Implications

Consumer Protection Gaps

The case highlights vulnerabilities in digital travel platforms, where opaque pricing algorithms can mask exploitative practices during emergencies. While the Philippines’ Air Passenger Bill of Rights mandates fare transparency, third-party platforms like AirAsia Move operate in a regulatory gray zone. This incident may spur stricter oversight of affiliate marketing and dynamic pricing models.

Corporate Accountability Challenges

AirAsia’s attempt to distance itself from its booking platform raises questions about liability for subsidiary services. Businesses using third-party digital tools may face increased scrutiny, particularly in markets with strict anti-price gouging laws like the Philippines’ Economic Sabotage Act. Companies could be compelled to audit partner platforms more rigorously to avoid legal fallout.

Policy Enforcement Priorities

The swift action reflects the Marcos administration’s focus on curbing inflation and profiteering. By invoking economic sabotage charges—a non-bailable offense with penalties up to life imprisonment—the government signals zero tolerance for crisis-driven price hikes. This could deter similar practices but risks chilling investment in digital travel infrastructure if regulations become overly punitive.

What We Think

The AirAsia Move case underscores a growing global tension between digital innovation and consumer safeguards. While dynamic pricing is a legitimate revenue strategy, its misuse during emergencies reveals systemic flaws in self-regulation. The Philippine government’s aggressive stance sets a precedent for Southeast Asia, where rapid digital adoption often outpaces policy updates.

However, targeting a single platform sidesteps broader issues: CAB’s fare-ceiling authority has been inconsistently enforced since airline deregulation in the 1990s, and the San Juanico Bridge crisis itself reflects longstanding infrastructure neglect. A sustainable solution requires modernizing transport networks alongside regulatory frameworks—not just punitive measures.

Finally, the legal distinction between AirAsia and its booking platform may test the reach of Philippine corporate liability laws. If courts affirm liability for affiliate services, multinationals could face pressure to restructure subsidiary relationships in regulated industries. This case isn’t just about overpriced tickets—it’s a stress test for balancing free-market efficiency with equitable access in the digital age.