Ref. Ares(2019)1576426 - 08/03/2019
Ref. Ares(2019)1879442 - 21/03/2019
EU CHARTER ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY
IN THE SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION RENTAL SECTOR
INTRODUCTION
The European Commission’s collaborative economy guidelines published in June 2016 were a
necessary and commendable first step towards the development of consistent and proportionate
rules for the collaborative economy and, specifically, the short-term accommodation rental industry
across Europe. The guidelines identified two main challenges to the balanced development of the
collaborative economy in the EU: a lack of clarity on the applicable legislation, and regulatory
fragmentation. They also sought to provide clarity on applicable EU rules and invited EU Member
States to review and, where appropriate, revise existing legislation according to the guidance.
Following on from the June 2016 Communication, the Commission launched
a project specifically
for the short-term accommodation rental sector on 14 February 2017. In its background paper,
circulated in advance of the opening plenary, the Commission stated that the aim was “to identify
best practices and, on that basis, produce a set of shared guiding policy principles which Member
States could agree to consider when developing policies and regulation in this sector. Policy
principles will be based on existing EU legislation and its application to the collaborative economy, as
set out in the June 2016 Commission Communication.”
To feed into this project, the Commission has held a range of workshops on key issues including:
• Market access requirements for accommodation providers
• Requirements for platforms
• Differentiating between peers and professional providers
• Consumer legislation and trust and transparency mechanisms
• Tax obligations and cooperation
During the opening plenary Hubert Gambs, Director for Modernisation of the Single Market in DG
GROW, stated that the focus of the workshops on the short-term accommodation rental sector was
due to its economic importance and the observed market fragmentation. He added that the
purpose was not to prepare the introduction of new EU legislation, or amend existing EU legislation.
The envisaged outcome, according to Gambs, would instead be a set of shared guiding policy
principles that authorities could consider in case they decide to develop policies or regulation
applicable to collaborative short-term accommodation rental services in accordance with EU law.
In tandem with this work, the European Commission has continued to lead on this subject area by
commissioning
a range of detailed studies on the collaborative economy. An exploratory study of
consumer issues in peer-to-peer platform markets was published on 12 June 2017. Similar studies
are under way in areas including taxation and the environmental impact of collaborative economy
activity. In addition, the Commission has published a range of analytical papers, including a series of
reports looking at market access requirements in the short-term accommodation rental sector
across a range of European cities.
However, despite such initiatives and the Commission’s guidelines, fragmentation of the single
market continues. Even as the Commission undertakes this work, rules have been introduced at a
Member State level which are not proportionate and which risk causing further fragmentation of the
single market. This is in addition to disproportionate rules that were in place before the guidelines.
For example:
• In Barcelona, platforms are being held responsible for the obligation for users to register their
activity with local authorities.
• There are uncoordinated attempts to distinguish between professional and non-professional
activity, or the point at which activity encounters new regulations. In Amsterdam, day limits are
used. In France, secondary homes and pieds-à-terre are subject to the same strict licensing
requirements as applied to professional investors. France has just introduced income thresholds
above which individuals will be considered self-employed. These measures are not always able
to establish a reasonable distinction and a harmonised framework needs to be developed which
is supportive of genuine peer-to-peer activity.
• In Berlin, the renting out of whole properties is heavily restricted. The implication of such
measures is that only short-term accommodation rentals where the host is in residence (renting
out less than 50% of his or her home) counts as ‘amateur’ activity. This unfairly discriminates
against people with a second home, which many people reside in for some proportion of the
year.
• In Brussels, private individuals renting out their home on a short-term basis have to comply with
a range of obligations, including the requirement to provide a wardrobe with at least two
hangers per guest.
• Pressure is being put on platforms to collect taxes from users for which they are not responsible,
which threatens platforms’ intermediary liability exemption and is also impossible for smaller
operators to comply with. A new law in Italy will, for example, require platforms to collect from
hosts a 21% tax on rental fees and remit it to national tax authorities, as well as collect city taxes
on a mandatory basis. Platforms will also have general monitoring obligations imposed on them
which contradicts EU law. In France, platforms have to inform hosts of their tax obligations and
provide information to the French Government on host revenue accrued (from 1 January 2019).
The European Commission’s political leadership has noted the fragmentation of single market
rules in the collaborative economy. European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Single
Market Andrus Ansip stated in a recent speech that: “Unfortunately, the landscape for regulation
and practice on the ground is far from uniform across Europe. This is holding back the development
of the collaborative economy. In the meantime, we are all losing out”.1
Many of the regulations that are being developed in Member States are not being developed in a
technologically neutral way and often favour one business model over another. This presents a
challenge not only for the ability of companies to comply with regulations
, but also for competition
in the sector as not all businesses are competing on a level playing field. This is a particular
challenge for smaller companies who may not have the resources to comply with the new
requirements.
The industry is very supportive of the work that is being undertaken by the Commission to support
the fair development of such an important growth sector. In particular, the creation of a set of
shared guiding policy principles that authorities could consider in case they decide to develop
policies or regulations applicable to collaborative short-term accommodation rental services is an
essential step towards stopping further fragmentation of the single market.
The purpose of this
paper is to lay out the industry’s thoughts on policy principles which could be adopted into the
Commission’s Charter which will be presented and endorsed by the Council of the EU
Competitiveness Council on 30 November 2017.
1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/ansip/announcements/speech-vice-president-
ansip-conference-collaborative-economy-ljubljana_en
KEY ISSUES AND PROPOSED CHARTER CONTENT
1) Market access requirements for short-term accommodation rental providers (defined as private
hosts and property managers operating on behalf of private and professional hosts) Legislative framework
• Under EU law, in particular the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty and the Services Directive,2
service providers are not to be subject to market access or other requirements, such as
authorisation schemes and licensing requirements, unless they are non-discriminatory,
necessary to attain a clearly identified public interest objective3 and proportionate to achieving
this interest.4
• The Services Directive requires national authorities to review existing national legislation to
ensure that market access requirements continue to be justified by a legitimate objective. They
must also be necessary and proportionate.
• Where short-term accommodation rental providers are legitimately required to obtain
authorisations on the basis of national law, Member States are to ensure that the conditions to
obtain them are, among other things, clear, proportionate and objective and that the
authorisations are in principle granted for an unlimited period of time.5
• Relevant administrative procedures and formalities must be clear, transparent and not unduly
complicated, whereas their costs for the providers must be reasonable and proportionate to the
cost of the procedure in question and the procedures must be as speedy as possible and subject
to tacit approval.6
Issues
• There are a range of existing Member State regulations in place that contravene EU law and the
existing law in some instances effectively prohibits the activity entirely.
• New regulations are also being developed in Member States which will contravene EU law if
they are implemented.
• The fragmentation of the single market is escalating despite the Commission’s guidelines
outlined in the June 2016 Communication ‘A European Agenda for the Collaborative Economy’.
• There is a disconnect between what is happening at a national and local level in Member States
which further fragments the market.
• Compliance costs are high, especially for new entrants into the market.
• Member States are applying different market access requirements (e.g. authorisation schemes,
notification and registration obligations, minimum quality standard requirements) which leads
to additional fragmentation.
• New regulations are often introduced by local authorities without any built-in processes to
enforce these rules. This often leads to non-proportionate requests to platforms, for example in
the area of data sharing (beyond what is allowed under EU data protection law), or to conclude
‘voluntary agreements’ to enforce of the local law on behalf of the authorities without any legal
checks and balances in place for businesses and citizens alike.
2 See Article 9 and 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC (‘the Services Directive’) and Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
3 For a list of overriding reasons relating to the public interest under the Services Directive see its Article 4 (8).
4 See Recital 39 and Article 4 (6) of the Services Directive.
5 See Articles 10 and 11 of the Services Directive.
6 See Article 13 of the Services Directive.
Industry guidance
• When a legal framework is necessary, the industry supports the introduction of a properly
designed and applied registration system with registration numbers.
• Where there are rules regarding the visibility of registration numbers on web platforms, the
industry commits to create a dedicated field for this number and communicate the applicable
rules to its partners.
• To the extent that the industry has received information from the authorities of the national
and/or local market access requirements applicable to short-term accommodation rental
services, the industry will communicate these requirements to hosts.
• Where there are limitations on the number of nights in which owners can let their property, the
industry commits to communicate to owners what these limits are.
• The industry commits to provide anonymous data (e.g. number of active hosts in a certain area)
on the activity when requested by local authorities.
Member State guidance
• New rules must be well-communicated, clear, easy-to-implement and enforceable.
• Before implementing any new market access requirements, Member States and local authorities
should undertake detailed quantitative analysis to determine whether there is demonstrable
evidence of a regulatory gap. Any new requirements should be based on clear and compelling
evidence.
• Any registration system for hosts should be simple, online and immediate.
• Member States should have consistent dialogue with all market players to identify existing
examples of local and national market access requirements that are disproportionate.
• Member States and local authorities should work in partnership with the industry and other
stakeholders when developing new regulations to ensure that any new rules are not unduly
complicated to follow. There should always be a consultation period and an analysis of whether
new rules are in line with best practice and EU law.
• Platforms providing only intermediation services should not be subject to market access
requirements such as business authorisation and licensing requirements. There may be grounds
for companies that are more involved in the transaction to be subject to additional market
access requirements but this should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
2) Differentiating between peers and professional providers
Legislative framework
• EU legislation does not establish expressly at what point a peer becomes a professional services
provider in the collaborative economy.7
Issues
• Member States are approaching the issue in different ways e.g. income thresholds, day limits,
residency restrictions.
7 The Services Directive for example defines service providers as any natural or legal person who offers any
self-employed economic activity, normally provided for remuneration (see Article 4 (2)). This means that any
economic activity could be captured by the rules of this Directive regardless of the frequency it is offered and
without requiring that the provider necessarily acts as ‘professional’.
• There is consensus that a distinction can be a means to facilitate the proportionate regulation of
the sector.
• Day limits are an arbitrary method which unnecessarily restrict the market and the ability of
individuals to let out their homes for short periods. They can also be difficult for authorities to
enforce. In addition, day limits are often unnecessary as many private homes can be empty for
short periods throughout the year and would not be used for longer-term rental as owners
reside in them for most of the year.
• Income thresholds can be an arbitrary means of distinguishing between amateur and
professional activity. If thresholds are set at a low figure, they can also lead to homeowners who
are manifestly amateur owners being categorised as professionals and therefore subject to
disproportionate requirements. Income thresholds also are likely to require regular review to
keep in line with inflation and other economic indicators.
• In some instances, policymakers seek to put a limit on the ability of individuals to let out their
secondary residence, or holiday home, as a way of limiting the activity. This could result in
leaving homes, which will not be placed on the long-term rental market, lying empty for large
parts of the year.
Industry guidance
• The industry believes that the most sensible, fair and simple way to differentiate between peer
and professional activity is to focus on residency. An individual should be able to let out their
home, or secondary home, for short periods while they are away. Enabling peers to let out their
homes on a short-term basis provides a way not just to supplement incomes and generate
revenue for tax authorities, it enables a more optimal use of assets and ensures that consumer
demand can be met in areas where the existing supply of accommodation for tourists and other
travellers may be insufficient. Other methods of establishing a distinction such as income
thresholds, or day limits, can often be set in an arbitrary way and are more complex to enforce.
Member State guidance
• Member States should avoid the implementation of arbitrary methods of distinguishing such as
day limits and income thresholds and focus on residency.
• Individuals with one to three properties, in one Member State or across the EU, which they
reside in for part of the year should be permitted to let them out on a short-term basis and be
subject to minimal requirements.
• An individual or company that lets out multiple properties on a short-term basis throughout the
year, particularly within a specific city or region, could be regarded as a professional and subject
to additional, but proportionate, requirements.
• In specific areas of cities or regions where there is evidence of short-term letting creating
pressures on housing, there may be a case for added requirements for providers such as a
licensing system. Any additional requirements on peer providers should be based on rigorous
analysis and designed in partnership with all stakeholders.
3) Requirements for platforms
Legislative framework
• Under EU law, online platforms, as providers of information society intermediary services, are
under certain conditions exempted from liability for the information they store.8
8 Article 14 of the e-Commerce Directive.
• The applicability of this exemption from liability will depend on the legal and factual elements
relating to the activity performed by the collaborative platform and applies where the activities
in question qualify as hosting services under the terms of the e-Commerce Directive.9 To do so,
their conduct must be merely technical, automatic and passive.10
• The exemption from liability applies on the condition that the platform does not play an active
role which would give it knowledge of, control over, or awareness of the illegal information -
and, where it nonetheless obtains such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove
it.
• Whether or not a short-term accommodation rental platform can benefit from such liability
exemption will need to be established on a case-by-case basis, depending on the level of
knowledge and control of the online platform in respect of the information it hosts.
• However, from existing EU case law it can be presumed that platforms that merely present the
information provided to them in a searchable format without promoting the specific offers
should be treated as information service providers hosting contacts from accommodation
providers.11
• Member States cannot impose on short-term accommodation rental platforms, to the extent
that they provide hosting services, a general obligation to monitor or to actively seek facts or
circumstances indicating illegal activity.12
• Short-term accommodation rental platforms may merely assist the provider of the underlying
services by offering the possibility to carry out certain activities that are ancillary to the core
information society services offered by the platform to intermediate between the provider of
the underlying services and their users (e.g. by providing payment facilities, insurance coverage,
aftersales services etc.) This, in itself, does not constitute proof of influence and control as
regards the underlying service. Similarly, offering user rating or review mechanisms is not in
itself proof of significant influence or control.13
Issues
• Member States have implemented rules which disregard the liability status of online
intermediaries and impose disproportionate rules on platforms.
• Member States are devising new rules which directly and indirectly threaten the liability
exemption and platforms are, in some instances, having a general illegitimate obligation to
monitor imposed on them and being forced to collect and remit taxes on behalf of hosts.
• The liability regime, which is a crucial pillar of Europe’s digital economy, is under threat.
• National law does not require platforms in other sectors (e.g. eBay, Craigslist, Amazon
Marketplace) to undertake such action on behalf of individuals so it is disproportionate and
unfair to expect short-term accommodation rental platforms to be responsible for such activity.
• The industry would like to take more proactive measures to support policymakers to address
public policy concerns (e.g. housing stock pressures associated with short-term accommodation
rental activity) however they have concerns that undertaking such actions might jeopardise their
liability exemption. The industry therefore welcomes the commitment from the Commission to
9 In the context of the collaborative economy hosting can broadly speaking be understood as the activity of
dealing with the storage of customer data and providing the venue where users meet providers of the
underlying services. The exemptions under Articles 12 and 13 of the e-Commerce Directive would usually not
apply in this regard, as collaborative platforms normally do not provide ‘mere conduit’ or ‘caching’ services
within the meaning of those provisions.
10 As per section 4 of the e-Commerce Directive.
11 See CJEU C-324/09 L’Oréal SA and Others v eBay International AG and Others.
12 As set out in Article 15 (1) of the e-Commerce Directive.
13 See pages 6 and 7 of the Commission’s Communication on the Collaborative economy.
provide clarification guidance on the liability regime by the end of 2017 and encourages Member
States to engage in this process.
Industry guidance
• As per the e-Commerce Directive, the industry will remove illegal listings once duly notified by
the relevant authority.14
• To the extent that the industry receives information regarding the laws applicable to hosts from
the authorities, the industry will continue providing and developing methods for explaining the
applicable laws to hosts (for example by sending educational e-mails and regular reminders,
showing pop-ups, providing information on a dedicated webpage).
Member State guidance
• Member States and local authorities should always have a consultation period with industry and
the EU, and undertake an analysis of whether new rules will be in contravention of EU rules for
online intermediaries.
• Member States should work in partnership with industry to ensure that the Commission’s
guidance on liability and notice-and-action procedures (expected by the end of 2017) is adhered
to.
4) Consumer legislation and trust
Legislative framework
• EU consumer and marketing legislation is based on the distinction between a ‘trader’ and a
‘consumer’. A trader is a person 'acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or
profession';15 a ‘consumer’ is a person acting 'outside his trade, business, craft or profession'.16
• When applied to the participant categories in the collaborative economy, these criteria
determine the respective rights and obligations of the parties under existing EU consumer and
marketing legislation.17
• EU consumer law applies to any collaborative platform that qualifies as a ‘trader’ and engages in
‘commercial practices’ vis-à-vis consumers. Providers of the underlying services also qualify as
traders if they act 'for purposes relating to their trade, business, craft or profession'.
• Conversely, EU consumer and marketing legislation does not apply to consumer-to-consumer
transactions. Therefore, if neither the short-term accommodation rental service provider nor the
user qualifies as a trader, the transactions between them will fall outside the scope of this
legislation.
• Member States currently approach this issue differently and under current EU law, this question
must be answered on a case-by-case basis.
• In line with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, all traders must comply with professional
diligence duties and not mislead consumers.
14 As set out in Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the e-Commerce Directive.
15 Article 2(b) Directive 2005/29/EC ('Unfair Commercial Practices Directive').
16 Article 2(a) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
17 For business to consumer transactions in the collaborative economy, the Unfair Commercial Practices
Directive, Directive 2011/83/EU ('Consumer Rights Directive') and Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts would apply. For business to business transactions, Directive 2006/114/EC on Misleading
and Comparative Advertising would apply.
Issues
• European Commission analysis has shown that EU Consumer and Marketing Law Directives are
still fit for purpose. However, there are issues related to limited redress possibilities; diverging
enforcement across Member State; rights not being fully adapted to the digital world; and low
awareness of consumer rights.18
• A Commission exploratory study of consumer issues in peer-to-peer (P2P) platform markets
identified a range of broad consumer issues which arise from the activities of P2P platforms:
transparency and clarity about the nature of transactions; reliability of review and rating
systems; discrepancies around platform responsibilities and liability; access to redress for peer
consumers and peer providers; and data protection concerns. Key findings from this report
include:
o Most active users are satisfied or very satisfied with their experience, but over 55% had
at least one problem with P2P platforms over the last year.
o Half of those who experienced a problem did nothing to address the issue. 60% of
consumers were not aware of who is responsible if something goes wrong.
o Peer-to-peer accommodation platforms provide fewer trust-building mechanisms than
other platforms.
o Peer-to-peer accommodation platforms are less systematic in terms of verifying identity
and user data and that their review systems are less advanced than platforms in other
sectors (e.g. sale of goods, ride-sharing).19
• Consumers using short-term accommodation rental services may not be aware of what
consumer protection mechanisms are in place to protect them, who is responsible and what
means of redress are available.
• Some stakeholders argue that the same consumer protection rules should apply to those who let
out their home on a short-term basis and commercial operators including hotels or bed and
breakfast owners.
• Residents in local communities have concerns that a growth in short-term accommodation
rental activity may negatively impact residential amenity and cohesion.
• The industry has strong rating and review mechanisms in place in which guests are encouraged
to provide feedback and owners are, on some platforms, able to leave feedback on guests.
Platforms act as the host of such reviews but remain neutral. Feedback mechanisms are an
important way of providing consumers with more information and choice.
Industry guidance
• The industry should have processes in place to ensure that user complaints are addressed and
fraud is tackled.
• In accordance with the e-Commerce Directive, the industry should have fraud detection
mechanisms in place and remove fake listings once duly notified by the relevant authority.
• The industry should recommend best practices to the guests about their stay (e.g. respect for
neighbours, acting in a non-discriminatory manner vis-à-vis their potential guests).
• The industry should look to delist owners from their platform in instances where there are
multiple and verified examples of anti-social behaviour linked to the property of an owner.
• The industry should work individually and collectively via trade associations with local
authorities to address any concerns raised by local residents and authorities.
18
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1448_en.htm
19
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=77704
• The industry should engage with local authorities to address any concerns raised by them or
local residents.
Member State guidance
• Consumer protection regulations should always be proportionate to the nature of the activity.
• Professional hosts should be subject to health and safety rules such as health and safety checks
by authorities. Member States and the industry should work together collaboratively to raise
awareness among consumers of the applicable rules.
• Any new consumer protection rules specifically designed for the short-term accommodation
rental sector should only be designed where there is demonstrable evidence of a regulatory gap
and be proportionate.
5) Tax obligations and cooperation
Legislative framework
• Short-term accommodation rental service providers and platforms are subject to taxation rules,
just like other participants in the economy.20
• Member States should aim at proportionate obligations and a level playing field. They should
apply functionally similar tax obligations to businesses providing comparable services.21
Issues
• There are differences in tax practices across the EU relating to collaborative economy activity.
• Tax authorities have difficulty in identifying the taxpayers and the taxable income.
• Amateur owners are not always aware of their tax obligations.
• The short-term accommodation rental sector has a wide variety of business models. Not all
businesses are able to collect and remit taxes simply and some activity is also conducted offline
between owner and guest.
• Member States are imposing disproportionate taxation obligations on platforms and new
requirements are not being developed in a technologically neutral way.
• Disproportionate tax obligations can have a particularly negative impact on smaller businesses
which may not have the resources to comply with taxation requirements.
• Platforms provide new opportunities to assist tax authorities and taxpayers with their tax
obligations, especially because of the increased traceability of transactions enabled by the
intermediation of online platforms.
Industry guidance
• Platforms will look into making available to hosts a summary of their activity (e.g. number of
nights they have let out their property, income accrued) on an annual basis, to facilitate
compliance with local regulations.
• The industry should inform their hosts of their general obligation to pay taxes. To the extent that
the information on tax rules are provided by the national authorities, the industry should inform
their hosts of applicable national tax rules.
20 See page 13 of the European Commission’s Communication on the Collaborative economy.
21 See page 13 of the European Commission’s Communication on the Collaborative economy.
• Platforms may choose to collect city taxes on a voluntary basis, subject to business model, and
supports other voluntary measures to facilitate tax collection.
Member State guidance
• Member States, or local authorities, should not mandate that platforms should collect taxes on
behalf of hosts and remit to the national or city tax authority. Such agreements should be on a
voluntary basis and only following a period of consultation with industry. The obligation for
paying tax should always remain with the person/entity legally responsible and compliance
should not be pushed to platforms that do not handle payments and therefore should have no
legal obligation to pay taxes on behalf of hosts.
• Member States should undertake an impact assessment of what the impact will be on all market
participants, especially SMEs, when developing new taxation rules that will apply to short-term
accommodation rental activity.
• Member States should develop guidance to assist hosts with their tax obligations.
TOOL BOX FOR A BALANCED POLICY APPROACH
Is there currently a distinction between
professional and peer-to-peer activity?
YES
NO
Review the market to see
Review the existing
which distinction (based on day
distinction – is it
limits, income thresholds or
proportionate, clear
NO
number of properties) or
(i.e. based on day limits,
combination of distinctions
income thresholds or
would be most practical, but
number of properties),
would also not risk a significant
and in line with EU law?
negative impact on the growth
of the sector.
Does detailed research show evidence of
a clear regulatory gap?
Combine minimal
regulatory
YES
NO
framework with
ongoing consultation
with stakeholders:
Has there been a consultation period on the
C, D, F
proposed regulations?
YES
NO
What are the primary concerns?
HOUSING
RESIDENTIAL
LEVEL PLAYING
GOVERNMENT
CONSUMER
SECURITY ISSUES
SHORTAGE
CONCERNS
FIELD
TAX LOSS
PROTECTION
Anonymity of
Clear impact on
Quality of life in
Comparable
National or local
Insufficient
accommodation
supply of long-
specific
economic
governments
redress
rentals allowing
term rental
residential areas
activities not
not receiving
mechanisms,
criminals to
accommodation
being impacted
subject to
tax revenue
health and
operate from
by activity
same
from activity
safety
properties
requirements
A, B, C, E
A, C, E
A, B, C, D, F
A, C, F
A, C, D
C
Regulatory key
A) Na
tional host registry – Policy makers may consider creating a national host registry. Hosts have to register
their property for short-term rental services and get a registration number. This system should be simple,
online and immediate. Preferably the register should be national. National authorities are thus able to monitor
the size of the market. It will also allow national tax authorities to monitor hosts and audit them more easily.
B) Mandatory display of a field to indicate a registration number when listing a property – The industry displays
a field to enable hosts to provide, if applicable, their respective registration numbers when they list their
property.
C) Ind ustry self-regulatory measures – These include the following:
• To the extent that the authorities have informed the industry of the rules applicable, inform hosts of the
relevant legal requirements.
• Provide anonymous data to authorities upon r
equest, allowing them to monitor the market.
• As per the e-commerce directive, the industry will remove illegal content once duly notified by the relevant
authority.
• Have processes in place to ensure that complain
ts from users are addressed.
• Tackle fraud.
• Work with authorities to address concerns rai
sed by residents.
• Recommend best practices to the guests about their stay (e.g., respect of neighbours).
• Inform their hosts to act in a non-discriminatory manner vis-à-vis their potential guests.
D) Enforce EU consumer law on professional hosts only – The professional-amateur distinction means that all
professional hosts qualify as ‘traders’ and are therefore subject to consumer law.
E) Licensing requirements –
In specific areas of cities or regions where there is evidence of short-term letting
creating significant pressure on housing, there may be a case for added requirements for amateur providers
such as a license or a registration system.
F) Voluntary tax collection agreements – Member States, or local authorities, should not mandate tax collection
and remittance for platforms. They should work constructively towards tax collection agreements, but the
obligation should remain on the person responsible
for the economic activity i.e. the host.