Legal Tokyo luxury hotels receive antitrust warning

[thomas]

The Japan Fair Trade Commission is set to issue warnings to 15 major hotel operators in Tokyo, including well-known names such as New Otani and Imperial Hotel, for allegedly sharing room rate information, potentially breaching antitrust regulations.

With hotel room availability strained due to a surge in foreign visitors and rising prices, the exchange of pricing details among managers at leading hotels raises concerns of a cartel-like dynamic, where operators may mirror each other's price increases. The JFTC plans to call on the companies to end the practice promptly. Other hotels that are expected to receive notices include Hotel Okura Tokyo, Keio Plaza Hotel, and Palace Hotel. As of Wednesday, the JFTC had reportedly informed the companies of the impending warnings.

A source told Nikkei that the 15 companies held monthly gatherings of sales representatives and others under the name Front Reservation. A different hotel provided the meeting place each time. Participants exchanged information including occupancy rates and average prices of occupied rooms, rate plans for the following month and beyond and reservation status. The meetings are believed to have been occurring for several decades. Rates for unoccupied rooms at competing hotels can be easily viewed on travel sites, but a hotel having knowledge of the occupancy status and future rates of competitors in the same area can affect its own rates moving forward.

Japan's Anti-Monopoly Act prohibits cartels—agreements between companies to fix prices or control sales volumes—as an unfair business practice. While a warning from the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) doesn't automatically imply a legal violation, it prompts businesses to halt or avoid actions that could potentially breach the law. In this case, the JFTC has opted to issue warnings, allowing for a swift response from the companies involved, rather than launch formal administrative proceedings, which would demand a more rigorous and lengthy investigation.


Paywall alert:

New Otani and other Tokyo luxury hotels hit with antitrust warning

For decades, 15 top-tier facilities shared future pricing plans

asia.nikkei.com

 

[johnnyG]

Skipping over that it may have been happening for "several decades", couldn't any person, manager or not, now working for one hotel, simply browse the internet for a while to see what competitors were offering?

And if demand is that strong and they're fully booked, the temptation to raise prices would be hard to resist.

 

[Ukigumo]

Business, capitalism, greed. Is it any wonder that the merchant class was at the bottom of the pile in feudal Japan?

Déjà vu…

 

[thomas]

Weren't there similar allegations against Japanese mobile phone providers some 10-15 years ago?

 

[Petaris]

Skipping over that it may have been happening for "several decades", couldn't any person, manager or not, now working for one hotel, simply browse the internet for a while to see what competitors were offering?

And if demand is that strong and they're fully booked, the temptation to raise prices would be hard to resist.

That is what I was thinking. How would they even prevent this? Sure they could stop this group meeting but what would that really change?

I don't disagree with them being gone after for price fixing but I am not sure if there a real way to prevent it.

 

[mdchachi]

That is what I was thinking. How would they even prevent this? Sure they could stop this group meeting but what would that really change?

I don't disagree with them being gone after for price fixing but I am not sure if there a real way to prevent it.

If it's egregious they can be caught. Especially if they investigate and find a smoking gun (emails, texts, etc.) or a whistleblower.

Is it any wonder that the merchant class was at the bottom of the pile in feudal Japan?

As I mentioned here, this seems to not be true.

 

[Ukigumo]

If it's egregious they can be caught. Especially if they investigate and find a smoking gun (emails, texts, etc.) or a whistleblower.


As I mentioned here, this seems to not be true.

I'll keep saying and posting it until it is true and say things like '…'probably' means it might so in my book, it is true'. That's how truths are forged on the Interweb

 

[mdchachi]

I'll keep saying and posting it until it is true and say things like '…'probably' means it might so in my book, it is true'. That's how truths are forged on the Interweb

Sadly it's easier to propagate untruths than truth. But when you think about it, it doesn't really make sense that they would be at the bottom. In those days businesses were mom & pop affairs which still exists to some extent in modern Japan. Most people wouldn't vilify an honest shopkeeper or craftsman even if they became wealthy.

 

[thomas]

Hm, an interesting topic for a future article. Here's what OpenAI says:

Were merchants really the lowest class during the Edo Period?

Great question — and the short answer is: yes, officially they were, but in practice, the story is much more nuanced.

The Shi-nō-kō-shō Class System

During the Edo Period (1603–1868), Japanese society was divided into four main hereditary classes under the shi-nō-kō-shō (士農工商) system:

1. Shi (士) – Warriors (samurai)
2. Nō (農) – Farmers
3. Kō (工) – Artisans
4. Shō (商) – Merchants

This order was based on Neo-Confucian ideals, which placed value on those who contributed directly to the state:

• Samurai were protectors of society,
• Farmers grew food (seen as essential and virtuous),
• Artisans created goods,
• Merchants, however, were viewed as profit-driven and "non-productive" since they only bought and sold what others had made.

But… reality didn't follow the ideology

While merchants were technically at the bottom of the social order, their economic power often far exceeded that of those above them:

• Many samurai were deeply indebted to wealthy merchants, as samurai had fixed stipends paid in rice and often needed to borrow money.
• Prominent merchant families (like the Mitsui or Sumitomo) amassed vast wealth, ran large businesses, and even influenced politics through financial leverage.
• Cities like Ōsaka, known as the "kitchen of the nation," were dominated by merchant activity and culture. Merchants funded the arts, kabuki theatre, publishing, and more.

Cultural contradiction

Despite their low status, merchants were key patrons of Edo culture. Thanks to their sponsorship, many of the era's most iconic arts — ukiyo-e, kabuki, haiku — flourished. So ironically, while samurai were the ideal, merchants often shaped the cultural identity of the period.

In summary:

• Yes, merchants were officially the lowest of the four main social classes during the Edo Period.
• But in practice, they often held substantial economic power and cultural influence, especially in urban centres.

 

[mdchachi]

I asked it to consider its conclusion in light of the reference I gave previously.

Excellent reference — and yes, this historical reassessment does challenge the simplified idea that "merchants were the lowest class" in a strictly vertical, fixed hierarchy during the Edo Period.

Let's break it down clearly in context of what you quoted and what we now understand from modern scholarship:

---

Traditional Understanding: "士農工商" (Shi-Nō-Kō-Shō)

The old model, which was often taught in textbooks and popular media, ranked the classes like this:

1. 士 (Shi) – Samurai
2. 農 (Nō) – Farmers
3. 工 (Kō) – Artisans
4. 商 (Shō) – Merchants

Under this model, merchants were seen as the lowest, since they produced nothing themselves and only moved or sold goods.
But as your quote points out, this model is not historically accurate — or at least not comprehensive.

---

Modern Scholarly View (as reflected in your text)

There are two major points of correction to that traditional view:

---

① "士農工商" wasn't a formal social structure in the Edo Period

The idea that people were officially divided and ranked into these four categories is an oversimplification:

• Contemporary documents rarely use "士農工商" to describe Edo society as a whole.
• Instead, society was more accurately structured as:
  
  • 武士 (Samurai) – Ruling class
  • 百姓・町人 (Hyakushō・Chōnin) – Commoners (including farmers, artisans, merchants)
  • えた・ひにん (Eta・Hinin) – Outcasts, who were outside the regular status system

Other groups like the emperor, kuge (court nobles), priests, and shrine officials existed as distinct categories outside the "shi-nō -kō-shō" idea.

---

② The classes weren't strictly hierarchical below the samurai

• Only samurai were in a true ruling position.
• Farmers, artisans, and merchants did not have a formal power hierarchy among them.
• While farmers were idealized in Confucian ideology as "the foundation of the nation," they weren't legally or institutionally ranked above artisans or merchants.
• The perception of merchants as "low" was ideological, not necessarily legal or structural.
• In reality, many merchants grew rich and influential (as we discussed), and status and power didn't always match official ideology.

---

Textbook Reforms & "四民平等"

• Because of these insights, modern Japanese textbooks have stopped using "士農工商" to explain Edo society since the early 2000s.
• Even the phrase "四民平等" (Shimin Byōdō – Four-class equality) used in Meiji-era reforms is now more carefully examined, as it may imply that those "four classes" were equally official before modernization, which isn't accurate.

---

So, Does This Contradict the Original Conclusion?

Not exactly — it refines it.

• It's still true that merchants were often looked down upon ideologically.
• But it's not accurate to say they were formally "the lowest class" in a legally codified or rigid social order.
• They were part of the chōnin (townspeople) class along with artisans — and the actual structure was more fluid and shaped by economics, regional practices, and individual status.

---