Hotel Pet Policy Consistency Across OTAs

Platforms represent pet policy as structured data rather than as a sentence in a description. Google's lodging reference defines fields such as pets_allowed, pets_allowed_for_free, dogs_allowed, and cats_allowed. When these fields are edited on one channel and not another, a guest can see 'pets allowed' on one listing and 'no pets' on another for the same property.

Booking.com partners manage whether pets are allowed and whether a pet fee applies in the property policies area of the Extranet. On Airbnb, pet permission is expressed through the listing's house rules. Because each platform holds its own value, the settings can diverge whenever one is updated in isolation.

Differences usually reflect an incomplete update rather than a deliberate rule.

• Pets are enabled on one channel during a trial and never mirrored to the others.
• A per-stay or per-night pet fee is shown on one listing and omitted on another.
• A limit on the number or size of pets appears on one platform only.
• Assistance and service animals, which platforms treat separately from pets, are confused with the general pet setting.

Confirm the property's approved pet rule first, then check each public listing against it.

• Record the approved policy: whether pets are allowed, any fee, and any limits.
• Compare at least two accessible listings before deciding the policy is consistent.
• Keep the original displayed wording next to any normalised value.
• Treat a missing pet field as incomplete evidence, not as 'pets not allowed'.