Dear readers,
it is not too late to report on a recent development in Dutch consumer law whose features make it likely relevant beyond local borders.
On 9 March, just before the country transitioned to "intelligent lockdown" because of Corona, the Amsterdam district court gave a very consumer-friendly judgment in a case between a Dutch holiday maker and accommodation platform Airbnb.
The basis for the case is a rule in Dutch law according to which real estate intermediaries cannot charge both the owner and the tenant for their intermediation services. The Amsterdam court agreed with the claimant that this rule should also apply to Airbnb, ordering the company to refund the fee unduly paid by the consumer.
The Court rejected a number of counter arguments raised by Airbnb, ranging from the non-applicability of Dutch law under the platform's T&Cs to the scope of the Dutch rule - which originally was intended for residential leases - to, importantly, the qualification of Airbnb itself as intermediary.
Readers of this blog may remember that Airbnb brought the French attempt to treat it as a real estate intermediary, which would result in it being subject to licensing requirements, before the CJEU, obtaining a victory against French regulators. The Dutch case at hand poses the interesting question whether the CJEU's ruling would stand in the way of considering Airbnb an intermediary for civil purposes only. A perfunctory look at the Information Society Directive (2000/31 EC) suggests the Dutch rule can be defended as being outside the scope of the harmonisation brought about by the Directive, which does not intend to harmonise rules of contract law other than the ones standing in the way of online contracting as such.
Meanwhile, the first specialised service has emerged, offering consumers to automatise their claims for redress of Airbnb fees. The possibility of redress is open to consumers who have booked after mid-2016.
