Spain has issued a stark warning to Ryanair that the airline could face criminal proceedings if it continues to ignore court orders linked to a long‑running legal battle with online travel agency eDreams ODIGEO. The latest ruling from a Barcelona commercial court adds a new and serious legal dimension to Ryanair’s increasingly fraught relationship with Spanish authorities, with potential consequences that extend beyond corporate fines into the realm of personal criminal liability for executives. For travelers, the escalation underscores the mounting tension between Europe’s largest low‑cost carrier and one of its most important markets.

The Commercial Court No. 12 of Barcelona has ordered Ryanair to comply in full with a July 2025 judgment that found the Irish airline guilty of unfair competition by denigration in its public campaign against eDreams. In that earlier ruling, the court concluded that Ryanair had harmed the reputation of the Spanish‑based travel group by accusing it of deceiving and defrauding customers and even committing “acts of piracy.” The court ordered Ryanair to stop using such language, remove related content and publish a formal rectification.

According to the new enforcement order issued in early February 2026, the court now considers that its original ruling has been breached. It accuses Ryanair of persisting in conduct that conflicts with the July 2025 decision, including the continued dissemination of material that portrays eDreams in a negative and allegedly misleading light. The court has responded by putting Ryanair on a tight, ten‑day deadline to reverse course, framing the order as a final warning before criminal sanctions are considered.

The judge has authorized coercive monthly fines for every month in which Ryanair remains out of compliance, but the most striking element of the ruling is its explicit reference to the possibility of criminal liability. Under Spanish law, the crime of disobedience arises when a party repeatedly and deliberately ignores a clear, binding order issued by a judicial authority. The court’s decision states that further non‑compliance could open the door to a criminal investigation into Ryanair officials, a step seldom seen in commercial disputes involving major airlines.

Background: A Bitter Fight Over Online Travel Sales

Ryanair’s clash with eDreams has been years in the making. The airline has long objected to the way some online travel agencies sell its flights, arguing that intermediaries add hidden surcharges, mislead consumers on pricing and undermine the direct‑sale model through the carrier’s own website. Ryanair has positioned itself as a defender of transparency and low fares, claiming that direct booking is the best way for passengers to secure the cheapest tickets and avoid unexpected extras.

In Spain, this commercial dispute spilled into the courts when eDreams sued over Ryanair’s public statements. The Barcelona court examined the airline’s campaign, which included strong accusations that the agency engaged in deception, overcharging and unlawful practices. In July 2025, it ruled that Ryanair had carried out an act of unfair competition by denigration, a violation of Spanish and European competition rules that protect businesses from misleading and reputationally damaging attacks by rivals.

The court ordered Ryanair not only to stop making such statements but also to withdraw relevant content from its corporate channels and to publish a corrective notice clarifying that eDreams is authorized to sell its tickets and does not engage in the alleged abuses. Ryanair removed some contentious messages and announced that it would appeal to a higher court. However, eDreams argued that the airline continued to highlight it negatively in comparative price materials and other communications, prompting a request for enforcement of the original judgment.

What the New Enforcement Order Demands

The enforcement order obtained by eDreams sets out in detail what Ryanair must do within the ten‑day window. First, the airline must cease all denigration connected to eDreams, which includes any implication that the agency defrauds customers, engages in piracy, provides illegal services, or lacks authorization to sell Ryanair flights. The court stresses that any renewed use of such language would be regarded as a reiteration of the breach.

Second, Ryanair must remove any remaining content that contravenes the 2025 ruling. This applies to its corporate website as well as social media profiles and any other official digital channels. The court’s order effectively requires a thorough internal review of communications, marketing materials and reports in which eDreams might have been singled out or portrayed as an outlier on price or legality.

Third, the airline has been told to publish a specific rectification message on its corporate website. While the exact wording is set out in court documents, the intention is to publicly correct the impression created by earlier statements and to reassure consumers and partners that eDreams is a legitimate and lawful intermediary. For a company that has built its brand on an uncompromising stance toward online agencies, this public reversal would be a significant climbdown.

From Civil Penalties to the Threat of Criminal Charges

The court’s reference to criminal liability marks a notable escalation. In commercial disputes, sanctions are usually financial: fines, damages and sometimes ongoing penalty payments to encourage compliance. By explicitly invoking the possibility of criminal disobedience, the Barcelona court is signaling that it sees Ryanair’s behavior not just as aggressive corporate strategy but as a potential challenge to the authority of the judiciary itself.

Under Spanish law, the crime of disobedience to judicial authority is rooted in the idea that court orders must be respected once they are clear, specific and enforceable, even if subject to appeal. Persistent and systematic non‑compliance can prompt prosecutors to open a criminal case, which in turn can lead to personal responsibility for executives or legal representatives, rather than only corporate fines. While the threshold for such prosecutions is high, the court’s warning suggests that the airline is approaching that line.

For Ryanair, this raises the stakes considerably. Disputes over competition, pricing or advertising can be framed as part of a broader strategic battle over market share. A criminal investigation, however, carries reputational risks that may unsettle investors, regulators and customers, especially in a key market like Spain. Even if no charges ultimately materialize, the fact that a commercial court has felt it necessary to spell out the possibility is a sign of how strained relations have become.

Part of a Wider Pattern of Clashes in Spain

The latest ruling lands against a backdrop of mounting friction between Ryanair and Spanish authorities over consumer protection, labor rights and pricing practices. Spain is one of Ryanair’s largest markets by passenger volume, yet it has also become one of the most legally contentious. In recent years, the carrier has faced major fines for what regulators described as abusive practices related to hand luggage, boarding passes and transparency on optional fees.

In 2024, the Spanish government announced tens of millions of euros in penalties against several low‑cost airlines, including Ryanair, for unlawfully charging passengers for cabin baggage and other services considered essential to air travel. Ryanair has fiercely contested those sanctions, characterizing them as politically motivated and inconsistent with European law. Some of the fines were later suspended following legal appeals, but the dispute left a lasting imprint on the airline’s relationship with Spain’s consumer authorities.

At the same time, Spanish unions have successfully challenged aspects of Ryanair’s labor relations in court. In late 2025, Spain’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling that found the airline had violated the right to strike and freedom of association during cabin crew walkouts in 2022 and 2023. The decision forced Ryanair to compensate unions and acknowledged practices such as obstructing strike coordination and applying disciplinary measures that courts deemed intimidating.

Implications for Travelers Using Spain as a Gateway

For passengers, the immediate impact of the latest eDreams ruling is not operational in the way a strike or safety issue would be. Flights are continuing to run, and tickets remain on sale through Ryanair’s own channels and various intermediaries. However, the legal battle does affect how and where travelers can comfortably book, and how airlines, agencies and regulators balance convenience, price and transparency.

Customers who prefer to bundle flights with hotels, car hire or other services through online travel agencies have long faced conflicting messages about the best way to purchase low‑cost fares. Ryanair has urged them to book direct, warning that third‑party sites sometimes add mark‑ups or complicate changes and refunds. Agencies, for their part, argue that they offer genuine choice and transparency across multiple carriers, and that airlines use aggressive tactics to limit comparison shopping.

A court‑ordered rectification by Ryanair would not settle that broader debate, but it would formally acknowledge that at least one prominent intermediary, eDreams, is a lawful seller of its tickets. For travelers, that could provide some reassurance when choosing booking channels, even as airlines and agencies continue to jostle for control of the customer relationship. The possibility of criminal consequences for further disobedience may also encourage a more cautious communication strategy from Ryanair in Spain.

The ten‑day deadline imposed by the Barcelona court will be the first crucial milestone. During this period, Ryanair must decide whether to make full, demonstrable efforts to comply with the enforcement order or to risk additional sanctions. Compliance would likely include a visible rectification on its website and the removal or modification of any lingering references that the court considers denigratory.

If Ryanair fails to satisfy the court, it could begin to incur monthly coercive fines. The amounts have not been publicly framed as existential for a carrier of Ryanair’s scale, but repeated penalties can accumulate and further damage relations with regulators. More significantly, continued defiance could prompt eDreams or the court to ask prosecutors to examine whether the threshold for criminal disobedience has been crossed.

Parallel to this, Ryanair’s appeal of the original July 2025 judgment is expected to continue in higher courts. An appellate ruling could uphold, modify or overturn the denigration finding, potentially reshaping the obligations the airline faces. However, until any appeal succeeds, the existing judgment remains in force, and that is precisely what the Barcelona court is now insisting must be respected in practice, not only in theory.

Reputational Stakes for Low‑Cost Travel in Spain

The confrontation between Spain and Ryanair touches on a larger question about the social license of ultra‑low‑cost travel. Over the past two decades, carriers like Ryanair have transformed air travel across Europe, opening up secondary airports and driving down prices. In Spain, this has supported tourism growth in regions dependent on budget flights, from Catalonia to Andalusia and the islands.

At the same time, low‑cost business models rely on strict control of costs and a high degree of flexibility on pricing, ancillary services and labor. Spanish authorities have increasingly signaled that some aspects of this model must be adjusted to comply with national rules on consumer rights and employment. The threat of criminal action over court disobedience suggests that Madrid and regional regulators are more willing than ever to challenge airlines that push the boundaries of acceptable conduct.

For travelers, this could ultimately result in clearer rules on fees, more robust protections during disruptions and greater scrutiny of how airlines communicate with customers and competitors. For airlines, it reinforces that expansion in key markets comes with obligations to respect local legal frameworks, even when they conflict with commercial strategy. Ryanair’s next moves in Spain will therefore be watched closely, not just by the parties to the case, but by the wider travel industry weighing how far it can go in public campaigns against intermediaries and regulators.