Slashdot Mirror
The EU Would Very Much Like Airbnb To Know That the Rules Are Different in Europe (fortune.com)
Airbnb is facing fresh regulatory pressure in Europe. But this time it's not about the short-term home rental platform's core business model -- it's about its terms and conditions, and the way the company presents pricing to consumers. From a report: On Monday, the European Commission and a number of EU consumer watchdogs accused Airbnb of breaking consumer law. If the company does not change the way it operates by the end of August, then it could face legal action. Specifically, the regulators said Airbnb must show people total prices up-front that include all charges and fees, and it must clearly tell customers whether a property is being offered by a private host or a professional. The American company's terms and conditions are illegal under EU law for a variety of reasons, the regulators added. For example, the company tells people in the EU that they cannot sue a host in cases of personal harm or other damages, and it claims it can unilaterally change its terms and conditions without giving customers a warning and the option of cancelling their contracts. These sorts of terms might fly in the U.S., but they're banned in Europe.
But they've got this right. Glad to see them doing the right thing.
These violations seem easy to identify, so why has it taken this long for the EU to act? I cannot tell from the story how long Airbnb has operated in the EU but they do mention other EU legal battles in the past so I'm guessing it has been many years. It's not like Airbnb is a small company that could have flown below their radar.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If you do not like the laws, do not do business in the country. Can you imagine what would happen if AB InBev (A Belgian-Brazillian company, stationed about 100m from where I live) would start selling beer to 16 year olds because that is what they do in the home countries?
No matter how stupid the law is, you must follow it and let the people decide what those laws are.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
AirBnB "tells people ... that they cannot sue a host in cases of personal harm or other damages, and it claims it can unilaterally change its terms and conditions without giving customers a warning and the option of cancelling their contracts."
The U.S. government should not allow companies to manipulate, trick, and otherwise abuse customers.
"... the [EU] regulators said Airbnb must show people total prices up-front that include all charges and fees, and it must clearly tell customers whether a property is being offered by a private host or a professional."
It is shocking and extremely unpleasant to see how much dishonesty there is in U.S. advertising, and the extreme weakness of the U.S. government in preventing abuse.
We are not used to that.
The whole:” the hotel is 299 pr night”
But then there’s the:
Resort fee, that’s another 50 pr night
Oh the tourist tax, that’s another 10 pr night
Ah you want to park your car? That’s another 25 or night.
And of course that’s without taxes.
And if you are using a hotel search engine, expect only the room price to be listed so you still have to do the calculations yourself.
I have learned to research it when I plan my vacations so it’s not a problem, just annoying. :)
L'Idiot
if European politicians would just take the bribe^XCampaign Contributions and look the other way.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The U.S. government should not allow companies to manipulate, trick, and otherwise abuse customers.
They shouldn't but they routinely do. The love to hide behind the fiction that many contracts are somehow not one sided and abusive because they are theoretically (though not really) optional.
It is shocking and extremely unpleasant to see how much dishonesty there is in U.S. advertising, and the extreme weakness of the U.S. government in preventing abuse.
Well, one party has been trying to do something about it, albeit meekly and in a pathetically limited way. The other party screams loudly that regulation is the devil no matter how sane the regulation might actually be and works tirelessly to permit companies to behave as badly as possible. End result is that we get screwed unless we are rich enough to fight the system.
The third-world of the first-world. The USA has seen better days, and most of us know it.
I have learned to research it when I plan my vacations so it’s not a problem, just annoying.
It is annoying but it is also a problem. It permits de-facto false advertising of prices. The price should be the price. Taxes, fees, markups, etc should all be rolled in, whatever they happen to be. I don't really care what the tax is in your jurisdiction - I just care what the out the door price is and that is what I should be able to compare. If this makes businesses under the jurisdiction of some local government less competitive then they should petition to have the taxes reduced.
Meanwhile in the USA, if you want to complain about a telco screwing you over, it now costs $225 to file a complaint with the FCC. Non-refundable. There use to be an informal free complaint system, Ajit has done away with that.
https://www.extremetech.com/internet/273212-fcc-may-gut-informal-complaint-process-force-consumers-to-pay-225-fee
Ajit Pai again.
The amount I have to pay is the only price that I'm interested in. That goes for ALL purchases.
A breakdown that shows me how much of that money goes to pay employees toilet paper and various taxes is nice, but ultimately a total irrelevance unless I can use them for deductions etc.
Taxes that a company has to pay isn't interesting to me. I don't care. And the beauty is that if everyone lists full price, nobody is at a pricing disadvantage.
Perhaps you missed this one:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html
World Health Organizations wants to encourage breast feeding. US milk formula lobby opposed it. So USA tries to remove the wording encouraging breast feeding. Fails. US then threatens the bill sponsor, Equador, with military and trade sanctions to force them to stop sponsoring the bill! Equador withdraws the bill.
Russia then sponsors the bill, USA shuts up, says nothing, lets the bill pass.
US starts a trade war with Canada, not over the milk exports (there's no such thing as fresh milk exports, its too expensive to ship *chilled* milk long distances), but milk *protein* exports. The same group of companies, the same type of product.
US has a trade *surplus* with Canada, and USA screws it over on things like pharmaceuticals import bans. Yet it starts a trade war over whey protein.
So the current pecking order is Russia > US Milk Powder Companies > Canada > Nursing Mothers
Please point to one case of this leading to a lower cost and not having to pay a lot more than expected.
Just one. One will suffice.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
That's an easy question :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
US is around 19T$, EU is 17T$ and relatively easy to do business in (strong rule of law, some convergence between countries). Next are China at 12T$, but if you find EU too much of a hassle don't even think about it, after that Japan (4T$) and India (2T$), also not easy markets.
So, if you don't think US is a big enough market, EU is a pretty natural second. But to play ball here, you gotta play by the rules. Which is true across the pond as well, just check out the fines EU banks were hit by in response to (presumably) violating US laws or statutes.
It's more of a fundamental difference in how civil law works. In America, you can put wording in your terms and conditions that ostensibly requires your customers to bend over backwards and kick themselves in the gonads while whistling Dixie, for three hours every Sunday morning. Your customers will then proceed to not bother to read the terms and conditions and not actually do any of the weird junk said terms and conditions supposedly require. As long as you don't try to actually enforce any of it, it'll probably never go to court, and your terms and conditions will probably never be officially ruled unenforceable. A great many American companies have wording in their terms and conditions that would never fly if actually taken to court. No one is very concerned about this, as long as they don't try to actually enforce them.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
It's more of a fundamental difference in how civil law works. In America, you can put wording in your terms and conditions that ostensibly requires your customers to bend over backwards and kick themselves in the gonads while whistling Dixie, for three hours every Sunday morning. Your customers will then proceed to not bother to read the terms and conditions and not actually do any of the weird junk said terms and conditions supposedly require. As long as you don't try to actually enforce any of it, it'll probably never go to court, and your terms and conditions will probably never be officially ruled unenforceable.
Under Australian consumer law it's unlawful to even make some of these claims, like "no refunds for any reason" and the ACCC will take you to court for even trying.
How the fuck is being required to show the real price up front a ridiculous regulation, rather than the bait and switch method and hidden fees the US uses?