(ITALY) – Italy’s competition authority opened a formal probe on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 into easyJet over alleged unfair baggage pricing practices on its website and app, widening scrutiny of how the airline presents add-on costs during booking.

The AGCM is examining claims that easyJet made bundled checked baggage and sports equipment the default option for round trips and showed only an average price, a combination the authority says could mislead customers about the true cost for a single leg of travel.

Passengers who wanted luggage for only one direction had to interrupt the booking process to change the default setting, according to the authority’s account of the practices under review. That design choice sits at the center of the case.

easyJet said it would cooperate fully with the AGCM and believes it has acted in line with consumer protection rules. The airline has not indicated any immediate change to the way baggage options appear on its booking channels.

The case brings fresh attention to ancillary revenue, the charges airlines collect for services such as baggage, seat selection and priority boarding. Those fees often sit outside the headline fare, and regulators have increasingly focused on whether booking systems make the full price clear before a customer commits.

In this investigation, the AGCM’s concern is not simply the amount charged for a bag. It is looking at how the charge is presented, whether default options steer customers toward buying more than they need, and whether an average figure masks the actual price of baggage on each leg of a round trip.

The alleged practice under scrutiny is specific. A passenger booking a return flight who needed luggage on only one segment would first see bundled checked baggage and sports equipment set as the default and then would have to stop the booking flow to alter that setting.

That matters in pricing terms because an average display can compress two different charges into one figure. A customer may see a single number during the purchase process while the real cost for outbound and inbound travel differs, making it harder to judge whether the add-on matches the trip being bought.

Italian consumer protection and competition law typically focus on whether commercial practices distort consumer choice or mislead buyers about price and product features. The AGCM probe appears aimed at whether those defaults and the average-price display did exactly that in the baggage context.

Sports equipment sits inside the same dispute because it was also presented as part of the bundled default for round trips. That expands the issue beyond ordinary checked baggage and puts the authority’s attention on the wider structure of optional travel extras sold through easyJet’s website and app.

The Italian action follows separate scrutiny in Britain, where the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that easyJet’s claim that large cabin bags were available “from GBP5.99” was misleading. The ASA banned the airline from using that wording in marketing.

That UK ruling turned on a different question from the AGCM case. The ASA looked at whether a specific advertised claim could be verified across a range of routes and dates; the Italian authority is examining pricing practices inside the booking flow, including defaults and how the fare components are displayed.

The ASA said easyJet had insufficient evidence that the GBP5.99 price was available across a range of routes and dates. A Which? investigation cited in that ruling found the lowest price among 520 easyJet flights was GBP23.49, with an average of GBP30.

Those figures sharpen the wider regulatory concern around airline extras. A low headline claim in advertising raises one set of issues; a booking path that starts with preselected baggage and presents an average number raises another, especially if the customer must break the purchase flow to remove options that were not actively chosen.

easyJet now faces two lines of scrutiny that speak to the same commercial pressure point: how airlines turn ancillary services into revenue without crossing consumer rules on transparency. In Britain, regulators objected to a fare claim. In Italy, the AGCM is testing whether the design of the sale itself nudged passengers toward paying more.

Customers booking round trips stand to feel the effect first if the authority pushes for changes. The most immediate shift would likely be in how baggage and sports equipment are presented, with clearer separation between outbound and inbound choices and less reliance on preselected bundles.

Any adjustment to the booking flow would also affect how easyJet frames its fares. A simpler one-way versus round-trip baggage choice could make it easier for passengers to compare the base ticket with the true total cost of travel before payment.

The probe does not rest on a dispute over whether airlines can sell extras. It goes to whether a customer sees those extras as genuine options or meets them as preloaded costs that require extra steps to remove. That question now sits with the AGCM as easyJet says it will cooperate fully while defending its compliance with consumer protection rules.