Airbnb was ordered, jointly and severally with a tenant who had unlawfully sublet his accommodation, to pay some € 58,000 to the owner, the court of Paris judging that the tourist rentals platform should have verified the legality of the transaction.
This Paris court judgment dated June 5 established that Airbnb Ireland “Is responsible for the acts committed by its users and must answer for all the illicit acts which will be committed on its platform”, the owner’s lawyer, Jonathan Bellaïche, immediately responded.
For its part, the tourist rental platform between individuals has specified its intention to appeal a decision which it believes “Goes against the fundamental principles of French and European law, which distinguish publishers from content hosts”.
A tenant who had sublet without authorization her accommodation located in the popular Marais district, in the 4th arrondissement of Paris, for 534 days, or 87 times in 2016 and 77 in 2017, was thus sentenced to the tune of 58,494 €. This corresponds to € 51,936 in fraudulent cash in rent, plus € 1,558 in commissions and € 5,000 in lawyer fees.
To justify its judgment, the court recalls that under article 8 of the law of July 6, 1989, a tenant “Can neither assign the rental contract nor sublet the accommodation, except with the written agreement of the lessor, including the price” of the sub-rent, which cannot exceed the rent paid by the main tenant.
In addition, according to articles 546, 547 and 548 of the Civil Code, the “Fruit” of real estate belong to its owner “By accession”.
Right of inspection
But, in an unprecedented way, Airbnb Ireland – the European headquarters of the company located in Dublin – was condemned jointly, the court finding that by refraining from checking the legality of the rental, the platform had, “By his faulty behavior, contributed to the damage suffered by the lessor”.
Justice has indeed established that Airbnb does not exercise a simple “Hosting activity” towards the hosts who use its site, but a “Publisher activity”, because various elements attest to the “Active character” of his “Connecting hosts and travelers” and his “Interference in content posted by hosts”.
Airbnb indeed has a “Right to inspect the content of advertisements”, which it can withdraw for reasons at its sole discretion, and on “Activities carried out through it”, notes the court.
– .
