A couple booked a vacation through a global booking platform. Upon arriving at the destination, it became clear that there is a substantial gap between the place shown in the photos on the website and the place in reality. While the couple demanded compensation due to the aforementioned gap, the platform claimed that it is only an intermediary and as such, not responsible for the truth of the information presented on the website.
The Court held that the platform is a travel agency and therefore has a certain, albeit partial, responsibility for the information published on it. When the platform is not satisfied with simple mediation operations, and performs other operations and offers additional services relevant to the field, then it cannot claim to be only an intermediary, and it becomes an active player in the market. In addition, while the platform, like other platforms that publish third-party information, states in its agreements that it is not responsible for the information entered into it by third parties, it is obliged to exercise a degree of caution and professionalism in its activities, an obligation that requires some kind of verification mechanism for the information entered therein. Here, the platform does not function as an intermediary only and offers ancillary services and is therefore a travel agency and not an intermediary. In addition, because the platform did not take any action at all to verify the information, it clearly did not act with care and professionalism and therefore violated its commitment and became liable, to some extent, to the quality of the purchased product.