How to Legally Resell Transportation Services via OTAs and Travel Agents for EU and UK Destinations While Ensuring Compliance and Avoiding Legal Risks

EU Transport Service Rules: In the European Union, passenger transport services are usually subject to sector-specific regulations and licensing at the member-state level . Pure “information society services” (ISS) – defined as electronic intermediary services – are generally regulated under horizontal EU rules like the E-Commerce Directive, not as transport providers . However, if a platform’s service is deemed inextricably linked to transport, it falls outside the ISS category and into the “transport service” realm, meaning national transport laws (e.g. taxi or private hire regulations) apply . A landmark 2017 EU Court of Justice case (Elite Taxi v. Uber, Case C‑434/15) held that Uber’s platform is a transport service, not a neutral digital service, because Uber exerts control over key aspects like pricing and driver conduct . This allows EU countries to require such platforms to obtain taxi or private hire licenses and comply with transport laws . By contrast, in a 2019 case (Airbnb Ireland, Case C‑390/18), the Court found Airbnb remained a mere intermediary for accommodation since it did not fix prices or provide the underlying service, so it qualified as an ISS . Similarly, the Star Taxi App case (ECJ Case C‑62/19) confirmed that a ride platform can be treated as a digital intermediary – and not a transport operator – if drivers are independent, set their own fares, and the app only connects riders with those licensed drivers .

UK Licensing Requirements: The United Kingdom imposes strict licensing rules on anyone arranging or providing transportation services. Under local laws (such as the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and London Private Hire legislation), any entity that accepts or facilitates private hire bookings must hold a private hire operator licence . In a recent High Court case, Uber Britannia Ltd v. Sefton MBC (2023), the court confirmed that a licensed private hire operator who accepts a booking must be the principal to the contract with the passenger – effectively, the booking agent is treated as the transport provider in the eyes of the law . In practice, this means that if a company arranges rides (even via an app), it cannot legally operate without the same operator licences and compliance duties as a traditional taxi firm. For example, Uber had to obtain a Private Hire Operator Licence in London and was deemed an operator (not just a tech platform) by regulators . Many EU countries have analogous rules: companies that organize or dispatch rides are often required to either be licensed operators or work only with licensed taxi drivers .

Years of regulatory uncertainty surrounding Uber’s operations have led to numerous web-based copycat platforms that mimic Uber’s model while operating without the necessary transportation licenses. These platforms often claim to be mere intermediaries or marketplaces, but in reality, they manage bookings, set prices, and coordinate drivers, thus legally classifying them as transportation operators. Landmark legal rulings, such as the European Court of Justice decision in Elite Taxi v. Uber (C-434/15), confirmed that platforms exercising significant control over ride conditions must comply with national transport regulations. Similarly, in the UK, cases like Uber Britannia Ltd v. Sefton MBC (2023) underline the requirement for any company accepting bookings to hold a valid operator licence. Consequently, businesses should exercise caution by carefully verifying licensing compliance before partnering with or reselling rides from these online services. Failure to ensure compliance could result in significant penalties, fines, and even criminal charges, as demonstrated by regulatory crackdowns against unlicensed Uber services (e.g., UberPOP) in France and Germany.

Key Takeaway: Across the EU and UK, facilitating transport services triggers regulatory obligations. A platform merely calling itself an “intermediary” is not enough to avoid licensing if its role resembles that of a transport operator. Courts and regulators look at how the service functions in practice – who sets prices and assigns driver, who bears responsibility for the ride – to determine whether transport laws apply . This legal backdrop sets the stage for understanding why GetTransfer.com and Welcome Pickups are treated differently.

GetTransfer.com’s Marketplace Model and Legal Classification

Marketplace vs. Transport Provider: GetTransfer.com operates as a marketplace platform, which under EU law qualifies as an information society service rather than a transport service . The platform connects travelers with independent local drivers or transport companies, but does not provide the rides itself. Crucially, drivers on GetTransfer propose their own prices and offers, and travelers choose among these options in an open bidding system . GetTransfer does not impose standard fares or fixed pricing – there is no uniform rate set by the platform . Nor does GetTransfer own vehicles or employ drivers; all transport providers on the platform are independent and (where required) properly licensed locally . Once a match is made on the app, the transport contract is directly between the traveler and the chosen driver/carrier, much like how Airbnb facilitates a direct contract between guest and host . The platform’s role effectively ends at the booking stage, after providing the marketplace for offers, handling the booking process, and securing payment .

This model means GetTransfer is legally viewed as a “information society service” arranging information exchange rather than an operator. Under EU case law, an intermediary service remains an ISS (and is not regulated as transport) when: (1) the platform does not set the price or essential terms of the service, (2) the actual service is carried out by providers who are independent and duly licensed to offer that service, and (3) the platform’s involvement is limited to enabling the contract and processing payments, without controlling the execution of the service . GetTransfer meets these criteria . For instance, in the ECJ’s Star Taxi App decision, the Court noted that when drivers are already operating in the market on their own and simply use the app as one way to find customers – setting their own fares and conditions – the app’s function is merely to introduce” the parties, not to provide transport . GetTransfer mirrors this scenario: it introduces travelers to transport providers, but the providers handle the actual transport service on their own terms.

Exemption from Licensing and Liability: Because of this marketplace status, GetTransfer itself is not considered a transport operator under the law . It is akin to an online travel agent or booking platform. As noted in GetTransfer’s own communications, the company “does not manage the booking and dispatch process akin to a private hire operator” – it facilitates direct contracts between the traveller and an existing licensed operator/driver . This distinction is pivotal. In the UK, for example, the strict operator licensing rules are meant for those who accept and take responsibility for bookings. GetTransfer emphasizes that none of the traditional private hire operator duties (like formally accepting the ride request as an operator, dispatching specific drivers, or setting fares) apply to its role . By staying a step removed from the actual provision of transport, the platform and its resellers avoid being classified as providing an unlicensed taxi service.

For resellers or partners using GetTransfer (such as travel agencies or hotels that book transfers via the platform), this structure greatly limits their legal risks. They are essentially referring or arranging a booking through a licensed carrier via the marketplace, rather than supplying the ride themselves. The contract for the ride is between the traveler and the driver’s company . That means the licensed driver or transport company holds the regulatory responsibility for the trip – including having a taxi/private hire license, insurance, etc. – not the reseller. In practical terms, a hotel concierge or travel agent who books a client’s airport ride via GetTransfer is not acting as an unlicensed transport operator, because the ride is actually provided (and contractually owed) by whatever local transport firm or driver accepted the booking. This shields the intermediary from the licensing requirements that would apply if they were deemed to be running a car service themselves. It also means that if something goes wrong (e.g. a service failure or accident), the primary liability falls on the actual transport provider (the driver or vehicle operator), rather than on the reseller or the platform – since GetTransfer is not a party to the carriage contract . In short, GetTransfer’s legal classification as a marketplace (ISS) confers a degree of immunity to both the platform and its reselling partners from being treated as the transport service provider. This stands in stark contrast to services like Uber or Welcome Pickups, which case law see to be the de facto providers.

Welcome Pickups’ Business Model and Licensing Requirements

Welcome Pickups (WP) as a Transport Operator: Welcome Pickups presents itself as a convenient transfer service (commonly for airport pickups), but unlike GetTransfer, WP’s model is more centralized and closely managed – which causes regulators to view it as a transport operator requiring a license. WP does partner with local drivers, but it standardizes prices, defines vehicle categories, and assigns drivers to bookings like a traditional taxi service or private hire vehicle operator. Riders using Welcome Pickups don’t choose among competing driver offers; instead, WP offers a set fare for a route (often a pre-set price for an airport transfer) and then dispatches a driver from its network to the customer’s request . In other words, WP controls key components of the transaction – the price the customer pays, the selection of the driver – rather than leaving these to an open marketplace.

This operational control mirrors the Uber-style approach and undermines WP’s claim of being “solely an intermediary.” In legal analysis, courts have pointed out that when a platform behaves as the organizer of the service – setting uniform fares and orchestrating the ride – it is providing more than just an information service . European case law (the Uber cases) says such a platform is “in the field of transport” and can be regulated as such . Indeed, WP’s model aligns with the factors that led the CJEU to classify Uber as a transport service: Uber set the prices, determined the conditions of service, and the driver’s role was largely dependent on the platform . Likewise, WP’s drivers are integrated into its service offering and customers deal almost exclusively with WP’s app presenting only one offer when booking, rather than negotiating directly with selection of drivers. Welcome Pickups sets standardized pricing and assigns professional drivers, aligning its model with that of Uber.

Licensing Implications: Because of this, regulators in the EU and UK are likely to deem Welcome Pickups and similar platforms as a transportation service provider (not a passive marketplace). Under UK law, for example, accepting or arranging hires without an operator’s licence is unlawful . The fact that WP tries to disclaim being the transport provider in its terms does not carry much weight if, in practice, WP is the entity accepting the customer’s booking and taking payment for the ride. As noted, UK authorities consider that the party who facilitates and takes the booking is the one contracting with the passenger, which “necessitates an operator licence” . If WP has been operating in cities like London or elsewhere in the UK without obtaining a private hire operator licence, it risks being seen as an unlicensed operator . This is not a hypothetical concern: the High Court’s ruling in the Uber Britannia case (2023) and Transport for London’s enforcement stance forced even tech companies like Uber to get licensed or shut down operations . Similarly, throughout the EU, many countries require anyone intermediating rides to either use licensed taxis or have a dispatcher/operator permit themselves . WP does use licensed, professional drivers (for example, in Greece it partners with licensed taxi drivers ), which helps on the driver compliance side. But using licensed drivers alone doesn’t exempt the company arranging the service from needing its own authorization. Authorities could require WP to obtain a transport dispatch license or similar in each jurisdiction it operates. In Greece, for instance, dispatching pre-booked transfers might require a tourism or taxi bureau license; in Spain or France, acting as an organizer of transport without the proper accreditation could breach national transport codes.

The treatment of similar services underscores why Welcome Pickups must be licensed. After the CJEU’s Uber decisions, EU law explicitly allows states to impose licensing on ride-hailing intermediaries . There have been crackdowns on platforms operating without compliance: Uber’s unlicensed UberPOP service (which matched riders with non-professional, unlicensed drivers) was banned or fined in countries like France and Germany . Notably, a Paris court in 2016 fined Uber €800,000 for running an illegal taxi service via UberPOP and even convicted some executives for aiding illegal transport and deceptive commercial practices . While Welcome Pickups does not use unlicensed drivers (avoiding the exact UberPOP scenario), if WP itself hasn’t obtained required operator licences, regulators could view it as essentially running an illegal taxi operation behind the scenes . In Germany, courts have not hesitated to ban ride platforms that violated local passenger transport laws (as happened to certain Uber services) . By analogy, WP could face injunctions, fines, or orders to cease operations in EU cities or the UK if it’s found arranging rides without proper licensing .

In summary, Welcome Pickups’ business model triggers the need for transport operator licensing, whereas GetTransfer’s does not. WP operates as a centrally managed service (advertising a complete ride service to the public), so legally it “falls under the definition of a transport service in both UK and EU law”, and cannot avoid taxi/private hire regulations simply by dubbing itself a tech platform . This is why Welcome Pickups – unlike a true open marketplace – faces regulatory requirements similar to any taxi or minicab company. Any reseller partnering with WP would effectively be selling WP’s regulated service, which means both WP and its B2B partners must be mindful of local transport laws to avoid facilitating unlicensed operations .

Tax Considerations (VAT and Other Liabilities)

VAT on Transportation Services: In the EU and UK, passenger transport fares are generally subject to Value Added Tax (VAT) unless an exemption applies. For instance, the UK levies 20% VAT on taxi or private hire fares (with limited exceptions) , and under the EU VAT Directive, international passenger transport is taxed in the country where the transport occurs . The key question is who is responsible for charging and remitting VAT on the rides – the platform, the driver, or the reseller? This depends on the legal role of each party in the supply chain.

• GetTransfer.com Resellers: GetTransfer’s marketplace model typically means the transport service is provided by the local driver/operator directly to the customer, with GetTransfer (and any reseller) acting as intermediaries. In this setup, the obligation to charge VAT on the fare (if applicable) would lie with the actual transport provider (the driver or transport company), who is the one supplying the service to the passenger .

GetTransfer resellers are not directly responsible for VAT on the ride fares (avoiding the risk of undercharging VAT to travelers) as long as they are truly acting as agents. Their tax responsibility is mainly to ensure they properly declare any commission income.

• Welcome Pickups Partners: By contrast, Welcome Pickups’ structure raises trickier VAT issues for its partners. WP historically has taken the stance that it is just a facilitator and thus does not charge VAT on the full transfer price to the end customer . If a hotel or agency “resells” a WP transfer, often they have the ability to mark up the price or set a final price to the traveler above WP’s base rate . In doing so, that partner might be deemed the principal seller of the service to the customer (especially if the booking is white-labeled or bundled). In such a case, tax law would oblige the partner to account for VAT on the total price paid by the customer, or at least on the margin they added . If the partner failed to add VAT, thinking WP handled it, they could be inadvertently selling a VAT-applicable service without tax – a compliance risk . The WP’s partners adding a margin must be careful to apply VAT under schemes like TOMS (paying VAT on their margin for EU trips) or else risk later tax assessments . Another risk is if authorities reclassify WP (the platform) as the principal provider of the transport (as has been suggested in recent legal trends). If WP is judged to be supplying the ride to the customer (rather than the driver), then WP would owe VAT on the full fare – and a retroactive tax bill could be huge . Tax authorities in the UK have already pushed Uber into charging VAT on all rides after court rulings on its status as a transportation provider (Uber now adds VAT to its UK fares) . If a similar view was taken with WP, VAT would apply to every ride, and any partner who collected money from customers without VAT could be on the hook to fix that situation (either by remitting the missing VAT or facing penalties). In summary, the VAT liability for WP’s model is murky and potentially significant, both for WP and any resellers, whereas GetTransfer’s model places VAT duties more cleanly on the actual service provider (the driver).

Other Tax Considerations: Aside from VAT, resellers should consider income tax or corporate tax on their earnings (which is straightforward – each party pays tax on their profits in their jurisdiction). There could also be local passenger taxes or fees in some cities (like airport pickup fees) but those are usually handled by the transport provider. Importantly, the “marketplace vs operator” classification has been a focal point in tax enforcement. Authorities increasingly suspect that platforms labeling themselves as agents might be doing so to reduce tax liability. The trend in case law is to look past formal arrangements to the economic reality (as seen with Uber’s cases on employment and VAT) . However, when a platform truly operates as a marketplace, the legal framework does allow it and its partners to avoid certain obligations. In fact, EU legislation (such as the special OSS/IOSS schemes and platform rules) often tries to clarify when an online platform must collect VAT on behalf of suppliers and when it doesn’t – typically requiring it only in sectors like goods or certain services, not in passenger transport yet. As of now, a GetTransfer reseller does not incur major tax liabilities beyond declaring their commission income and ensuring any required VAT on that commission or margin is paid. They generally do not have to register for VAT in every destination country just for selling a one-off transfer. By contrast, if WP (or its partner) is treated as selling transport in multiple countries, it could trigger multi-country VAT registrations or use of one-stop VAT schemes to remit tax where the rides occur .

Legal Precedents: Marketplace vs. Transportation Service Provider

Multiple court cases and regulatory actions illustrate the dividing line between being a neutral marketplace and being a transportation operator:

• CJEU Elite Taxi v. Uber (2017) : The European Court of Justice held that Uber’s service – connecting passengers with drivers via an app while controlling key terms – “cannot be regarded as a service of the information society” but instead is a service in the field of transport. This precedent established that platforms which shape and manage the underlying service (like setting fares and standards) can be required to comply with transport regulations and licensing in each EU member state. It removed the shield of the E-Commerce Directive from such platforms.

• CJEU Airbnb Ireland (2019) : In contrast to Uber, the ECJ found Airbnb to be an intermediary digital service, not an estate agent or accommodation provider. Key to this decision was that Airbnb did not set rental rates or determine the content of the service – those were decided by the hosts. This case is often cited alongside Elite Taxi to demonstrate that control and integration are decisive: lack of control keeps a platform in the “marketplace” category.

• CJEU Star Taxi App (2021) : This case involved a Romanian taxi app. The ECJ ruled that if an app merely connects licensed taxi drivers with passengers, without imposing fares or creating a new transport offer beyond what drivers ordinarily provide, it can remain an information society service. The court emphasized that drivers were already offering rides independently of the app, and the app was just another channel for them. This ruling buttresses the position of platforms like GetTransfer, indicating that an app isn’t automatically a transport operator if it’s truly working as a marketplace.

• UK High Court – Uber Britannia Ltd v. Sefton MBC (2023) : This case clarified the application of UK private hire law to app-based intermediaries. The High Court determined that the entity accepting a ride booking from a passenger is, in law, the principal to the contract for that ride. Therefore, an app company cannot sidestep liability by saying the contract is only between passenger and driver. In practice, this meant that Uber (and by extension any similar service like Welcome Pickups) must obtain an operator licence and meet all regulatory requirements, since it is Uber who accepts the booking from the passenger even if a driver ultimately fulfills the ride. The judgment directly challenges any intermediary defense for companies that take bookings and payment in a hire-car context.

• UK Supreme Court – Uber BV v. Aslam (2021) (Employment case): While this case was about driver employment status, one outcome was that Uber’s argument of being just an “agent” was rejected, which influenced perspectives on tax. Following that case, HMRC (UK tax authority) pushed the view that Uber was a principal for VAT purposes. Uber eventually started adding VAT to fares, anticipating that outcome . This shows courts treating the platform as the supplier in fact, which is a warning to services like Welcome Pickups: if you function as the supplier, you may be held accountable for all related obligations (employment, VAT, etc.) despite contractual disclaimers.

• Enforcement Actions – France and Germany : French courts penalized Uber for the UberPOP service (unlicensed rides) not just for the drivers’ lack of licenses, but for misleading business practices – Uber was deemed to have misrepresented its legality to consumers . Germany issued injunctions against Uber until it reformed its model to work only with licensed rental car companies, under threat of heavy fines . These precedents illustrate that authorities will target both the platform and those who facilitate an illegal transport service. Notably, consumer protection laws were also invoked – providing a service “under the guise of legality” when it isn’t can be considered a deceptive practice. A parallel could be drawn if Welcome Pickups offered rides in a city without proper licensing – it could face similar charges. Resellers could also be implicated if they knowingly resold rides that turned out to be illegally operated (though enforcement would likely focus on the primary operator).

In light of these cases, GetTransfer.com’s approach appears legally fortified: it aligns with the Airbnb/Star Taxi App side of the spectrum, ensuring drivers have requisite licenses and leaving core service decisions to them, thereby maintaining the platform as an independent intermediary . Welcome Pickups, on the other hand, fits the Uber model and thus inherits the legal burdens of a transport operator . This explains why GetTransfer resellers generally avoid licensing and tax troubles – they are plugging into a marketplace where each ride is provided by a compliant local operator – whereas Welcome Pickups (and its partners) must navigate additional legal and TAX requirements to lawfully offer the same kind of service.

Conclusion

GetTransfer.com’s status as a marketplace platform (an “information society service”) in the EU and UK lets it operate more like a travel agent than a transport carrier. Its drivers are licensed, set their own prices, and contract directly with passengers . This shields both the platform and resellers who book rides through it from needing taxi operating licenses or incurring the liabilities that come with being the transport provider. Welcome Pickups, by contrast, crosses the line into operating a transportation service: it fixes prices and orchestrates the entire ride experience with its driver network, which legally compels it to obtain transport operator licenses and meet regulatory duties in the jurisdictions it serves . Partners reselling WP’s transfers face similar exposure if these rides are not properly licensed or taxed.

On the tax front, GetTransfer’s intermediary model localizes VAT obligations to the actual service providers (the drivers), meaning resellers are not responsible for charging VAT on the full ride price – they only need to account for their commission or margin . With Welcome Pickups, the unclear division of supplier roles can leave VAT unaccounted for on fares, risking non-compliance for both WP and its resellers if they fail to handle VAT on markups or if authorities reclassify the platform as the principal supplier .

In summary, the regulatory and legal differences come down to whether the platform is a true marketplace or an active transport operator. Court precedents from the CJEU and UK courts support this distinction, carving out safe harbor for marketplace platforms but enforcing full transport-service accountability on those that operate like Uber . GetTransfer’s design keeps it on the right side of this divide – thereby sparing its resellers from the tax, legal, and licensing risks that burden more operator-like services such as Welcome Pickups. Sources and References: European Court of Justice rulings (Cases C‑434/15, C‑390/18, C‑62/19) ; UK High Court in Uber Britannia v. Sefton ; UK Supreme Court on Uber (2021) ; and analyses of Welcome Pickups’ terms and practices in light of transport law all reinforce these conclusions. The cumulative legal guidance is clear – if a company wants to avoid the liabilities of a transport provider, it must truly act like a neutral marketplace. GetTransfer has embraced that model, whereas Welcome Pickups must operate within the tighter confines of transport regulations to stay compliant.