Reselling Ground Transportation Services by OTAs in the UK and EU

“If an OTA operates like Uber and earns like Uber, then it should be regulated like Uber.”, Alexander Sapov

Introduction

Online Travel Agencies (OTAs) and travel platforms often resell ground transportation services (such as airport-to-hotel transfers) by packaging rides and setting fixed prices for vehicle classes (e.g. economy sedan, luxury SUV, shuttle van). While this provides convenience to travelers, it also raises legal compliance issues. Unlike flights or hotels, local ground transport (taxis, private hire vehicles, shuttles) is heavily regulated. When an OTA effectively operates or brokers a ride service – especially by setting prices and selecting drivers – it is crossing from a mere intermediary into the role of a transport provider. This analysis examines the potential law violations in such scenarios across two jurisdictions, the United Kingdom and the European Union, focusing on:

• Tax compliance (e.g. charging and remitting VAT)

• Licensing requirements (transport operator licensing and service classification)

• Consumer protection (misleading pricing or unclear terms)

• Competition and unfair advantage (distorting the market against compliant operators)

Each of these legal domains is discussed separately for the UK and the EU, citing relevant laws, regulators (e.g. HMRC, DVSA, European Commission, national transport authorities), and illustrative court cases (such as the landmark Uber rulings).

United Kingdom

Tax Compliance (VAT on Transfer Services)

In the UK, Value Added Tax (VAT) generally applies to passenger transport services like taxi or private hire rides at the standard 20% rate (with only limited exceptions) . This means that if an OTA or platform is deemed to be supplying a transfer service in the UK, it is responsible for charging 20% VAT on the fare and remitting it to HMRC. A key issue is determining who is the supplier of the ride for VAT purposes – the platform (OTA), the driver/operator, or an agent in between. UK tax authorities will look beyond labels to the economic reality: if the OTA controls pricing and provides the service to the customer, it will be treated as the supplier and thus must handle VAT .

• Failure to Charge/Remit VAT: If an OTA sets a fixed price for a car transfer and collects payment from the customer without adding VAT (assuming it’s just an “intermediary”), it may be committing a tax violation by undercharging VAT. HMRC has taken the stance that ride platforms like Uber are principals for VAT – as evidenced by recent court rulings that forced Uber to start adding 20% VAT to its UK fares . Not collecting VAT when required can lead to large back-tax assessments and penalties. For example, after UK court decisions clarified Uber’s role as a transport provider, Uber changed its model in 2022 to charge VAT on all rides, anticipating HMRC enforcement . An OTA in a similar position will face retroactive VAT bills for past uncharged taxes, plus interest and fines, if HMRC determines it should have been accounting for VAT on transfer sales.

• VAT Schemes and Compliance: There are special VAT schemes like the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) that travel businesses might use for multi-component packages. However, a standalone ground transfer in the UK would not fall under a VAT exemption (unlike, say, public bus fares or domestic air travel). Unless the OTA is truly acting as an agent for a local transport company (the transport company charges any VAT due), the OTA must register and remit VAT on the full price paid by the traveler. Any misstep in VAT collection – such as treating a VAT-able transfer as tax-free – is a breach of UK tax law and could be pursued by HMRC. In summary, OTAs setting transfer prices need to either ensure the underlying provider is handling VAT, or charge VAT themselves; doing neither violates VAT regulations and results in an uncollected tax liability .

Licensing and Regulatory Requirements

Transport service licensing in the UK is stringent. Under local law – notably the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (applicable outside London) and the London private hire vehicle (PHV) regulations – any person or company that accepts or facilitates bookings for private hire vehicles must hold a private hire operator licence . In other words, if an OTA is effectively taking a booking for a car transfer (a pre-booked ride), it cannot do so lawfully without the appropriate operator’s licence. Operating as an unlicensed taxi or minicab dispatcher is a criminal offense. Key points include:

• Principal to the Contract: A recent High Court case in the UK (Uber Britannia Ltd v. Sefton MBC, 2023) affirmed that the entity which accepts a passenger’s booking is legally deemed the principal contracting party for that ride . This means the OTA or platform arranging the ride is viewed as providing the transport service to the passenger (even if a third-party driver physically performs the ride). The court rejected the idea that a booking agent could distance itself from the actual service – if you arrange the ride, in the eyes of the law you are the transport provider and must meet all corresponding licensing obligations . Following this logic, any OTA that sets the price and confirms a transfer booking is likely considered a private hire operator.

• Requirement of PHV Operator Licence: Because of the above, OTAs reselling ground transfers in the UK must ensure they or their partners hold the requisite operator licences. For example, Uber itself had to obtain a Private Hire Operator Licence in London and abide by all local regulations, once regulators determined it was functioning as more than a mere “tech platform” . An unlicensed OTA is exposed to enforcement by local authorities (e.g. Transport for London in the capital, or municipal licensing authorities elsewhere). Operating without a licence can lead to penalties, including fines and potential criminal charges. If discovered, local regulators can issue cease-and-desist orders or revoke the OTA’s ability to operate in that area until compliance is achieved.

• DVSA and Vehicle Compliance: In the UK, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) oversees road safety and vehicle standards. While DVSA doesn’t issue private hire licenses, it can get involved if vehicles are being operated outside of legal parameters (for instance, carrying passengers for hire without proper insurance or inspections). An OTA facilitating transfers with unlicensed or non-compliant vehicles could attract DVSA scrutiny. Additionally, if larger vehicles (minibuses with 9+ seats) are used for transfers, a Public Service Vehicle (PSV) operator licence and driver PCV licences (which DVSA regulates) would be required. Misclassifying the service (for example, operating a de facto taxi shuttle under the guise of a “ride share” or “carpool”) can trigger regulatory action from both local councils and agencies like DVSA. In short, lacking the proper transport service licences in the UK is a legal violation that can result in enforcement action ranging from fines to shutdown of the service.

Consumer Protection and Transparency

UK consumer protection laws require businesses to deal fairly and transparently with customers, and this extends to OTAs selling ground transfers. Misleading advertising or omission of material facts is prohibited by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (which implement the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, still in effect in UK law). Several potential violations arise in the OTA ground transfer context:

• Misrepresentation of Legality or Quality: An OTA that sells transfers must not mislead consumers about the nature of the service. If the OTA is operating without the necessary licences or failing to pay required taxes, yet presenting the transfer service as fully legal, safe, and vetted, this is a misrepresentation. In France, for example, courts found Uber had “misrepresented its legality to consumers” by offering UberPOP rides without proper licenses, constituting a deceptive business practice . A similar principle applies under UK law: representing an unlicensed or non-compliant transport service as legitimate would likely be considered a misleading commercial practice . Consumer protection regulators (and courts) can take action against companies that provide a service “under the guise of legality” when it is not, deeming it a form of fraudulent or deceptive conduct .

• Pricing Transparency: OTAs must also be clear about pricing and terms. UK regulations mandate that quoted prices include all taxes and mandatory fees. If an OTA fails to include VAT (when it is due) in the displayed transfer price or adds hidden surcharges, it risks violating pricing transparency rules. For instance, if a transfer is sold to a UK consumer and no VAT is added (despite VAT being applicable), the consumer may later face a surprise tax charge or see it on a receipt – this lack of clarity can breach the requirement for transparent pricing. Furthermore, if the OTA allows partners to add mark-ups without clear disclosure, it can confuse consumers about who is charging what. Unclear terms (such as ambiguous cancellation policies or liability disclaimers) may also breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires that contract terms with consumers be fair and transparent.

• Liability and Service Delivery Issues: Ground transfers involve duty-of-care – vehicles must show up on time, drivers must be licensed and insured, and the ride must be safe. If an OTA’s terms try to disclaim responsibility for these aspects by actually control the service by setting prices and assigning driver (for example, saying “we are just an intermediary, any issues now are between you and the driver”), this conflict with how the law views the OTA if it becomes a transportation service provider (as the principal provider per the UK High Court ruling). Such disclaimers could be deemed unfair contract terms if they leave the consumer without clear recourse. UK authorities (like the Competition and Markets Authority and local Trading Standards) can enforce consumer protection laws by requiring changes to terms or imposing fines for systemic misleading practices. In sum, OTAs face legal risk if they mislead consumers or fail to provide the clear, truthful information expected – whether about the legal status of the service, the price (including VAT), or the rights and remedies available to the consumer.

Competition and Unfair Market Advantage

When an OTA or platform circumvents regulatory requirements (tax, licensing, etc.), it gains a cost advantages over traditional, compliant transport operators. This raises issues of fair competition. In the UK, as in many jurisdictions, competition law proper (antitrust) would come into play mainly if a dominant firm abuses its position. However, unfair competitive advantage resulting from regulatory evasion can be challenged through other legal pathways and policy mechanisms:

• Unfair Competition Claims: Competing transport providers (e.g. licensed taxi or minicab companies) have argued that unlicensed or untaxed services amount to unfair competition. In some cases, they have taken legal action. For example, the landmark Spanish case against Uber – which led to a European Court of Justice ruling – was initially brought by a Barcelona taxi association under Spain’s unfair competition law for Uber’s failure to follow taxi licensing rules . The logic is that by skirting the rules, the platform undercuts law-abiding businesses. In the UK, a similar argument could be made under common law or via regulatory complaint: that an OTA not complying with licensing/tax rules is effectively competing unlawfully. Courts and regulators tend to agree that all market players must follow the law; an OTA cannot gain a competitive edge by operating an illegal service. Indeed, UK judges and authorities have been unsympathetic to “innovators” who ignore regulations – requiring Uber and others to level up to the same standards as incumbents rather than allowing a free pass in the name of innovation .

• Market Distortion and Regulatory Response: An OTA that doesn’t charge VAT (when required) can charge lower prices (about 20% less) than a compliant rival – a significant price distortion. Likewise, avoiding the costs of licensing (fees, training, insurance requirements, vehicle checks) lets an illegitimate operator price rides cheaper. This puts compliant operators at a competitive disadvantage and can drive them out of business or force them to also cut corners. UK competition authorities, such as the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA), are attuned to “level playing field” issues. While the CMA would typically get involved if there were cartel behavior or abuse of dominance, it also has a role in advocating for fair markets. In practice, the immediate response has been through enforcement of licensing and tax laws (as described above) to remove any unlawful advantage. For example, when Transport for London found Uber not meeting safety standards, it revoked Uber’s licence until changes were made – protecting consumers and competitors from a substandard service . Similarly, if an OTA consistently underprices transfers by flouting VAT, HMRC action to collect the tax arrears not only upholds the law but also removes the illicit competitive edge.

• Potential Competition Law Scrutiny: If a major OTA dominated the ground transfer market and its business model was premised on regulatory avoidance, one could foresee an argument that this amounts to anti-competitive conduct. A dominant firm could be accused of abusing its dominance by not complying with regulations (a novel theory, but essentially leveraging illegal cost savings to stifle competition). Even absent a formal antitrust case, the reputational and legal pressure on such firms is high. Both the UK government and courts have signaled that new economy companies must play by the rules. The cumulative effect of legal challenges (like taxi driver lawsuits and regulatory crackdowns) is to ensure that OTAs cannot sustain a business model that relies on breaking the law for competitive gain . In summary, UK authorities aim to protect fair competition by enforcing compliance – any OTA that resells ground transport without observing the same rules that bind local transport operators is likely to face legal challenges, which in turn curtail any unfair market advantage it sought to gain.

European Union

Tax Compliance (VAT and Related Taxes)

In the European Union, VAT on passenger transport is governed by the EU VAT Directive, which generally provides that VAT is due in the country where the transport takes place . Each member state has its own VAT rate for transport services (many use standard rates for taxi services, though some have reduced rates or exemptions for certain public transport). Key considerations for OTAs reselling ground transfers in the EU include:

• VAT Obligations in Member States: If an OTA based in one country sells an airport transfer in another EU country (for example, a U.S. OTA selling a Paris airport pickup), EU VAT should typically be applied in the country of origin of the ride (France in this example). The OTA may need to register for VAT in that member state or use special schemes to remit the tax. The EU has introduced One-Stop Shop (OSS) schemes for certain cross-border services, but as of now passenger transport is not fully covered by OSS . Many OTAs instead might fall under the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) for VAT if they buy and resell travel services; under TOMS, the business pays VAT only on its margin for EU travel services. However, TOMS has strict rules, and not applying it correctly (or at all) can lead to non-compliance. For instance, if an OTA or its partner marks up the price of a transfer, EU tax law would require VAT on that markup or on the full price if the OTA is deemed the supplier . Failing to charge VAT on the full selling price (when acting as principal) is a violation of tax law in the country where the service is enjoyed. A partner that assumed the platform handled VAT could find that tax authorities view the partner as the seller, liable for the missing VAT .

• Enforcement and Legal Exposure: The EU is increasingly cracking down on VAT evasion in the digital economy. Although there isn’t a centralized EU “IRS,” each nation’s tax authority (e.g. Germany’s Bundeszentralamt für Steuern, France’s DGFiP, etc.) can pursue the OTA for unpaid VAT on services within their jurisdiction. Moreover, case law in Europe is evolving to pierce through form-over-substance arrangements. Just as courts have reclassified ride platforms as transport companies, tax authorities will reclassify an “agent” as a seller for VAT if that reflects reality. The example of Uber is telling: after the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled Uber is a transport service (2017) and subsequent UK court decisions on its status, tax authorities pressured Uber to charge VAT on rides, which Uber began doing . If an OTA in the EU similarly controls the service, it could be recharacterized as the supplier and hit with a significant VAT bill on past fares . Such a bill could be “huge” and possibly retroactive, covering all rides where VAT should have been applied . In addition, penalties for non-remittance can apply, and the OTA might have to compensate for the uncollected tax (either by absorbing the cost or attempting to collect it after the fact, which could breach consumer price agreements). In short, not collecting or remitting VAT on EU ground transfers where required is a serious legal violation that can lead to tax enforcement actions across multiple countries.

• Other Taxes: Aside from VAT, OTAs should consider any specific local taxes on transport – for example, airport pickup fees or city transportation surcharges. Typically, licensed transport operators handle these (including them in the fare or paying them directly), but if an OTA is the principal, it must ensure such fees are paid. Ignoring mandatory local fees or taxes (like a per-ride city tax) could also constitute a violation of local tax ordinances. While these are usually smaller in scale than VAT, they contribute to the regulatory burden that an OTA must shoulder if acting as a transport provider.

Licensing and Service Classification

Licensing requirements for passenger transport in the EU are governed at the member-state level. There is no single EU-wide taxi or private hire license; instead, each country (or even city) sets its own rules on who may provide car transport services for hire. However, a critical overarching issue is whether an OTA’s activity qualifies as a mere “information society service” (i.e. a digital intermediary service under the E-Commerce Directive) or as a transportation service. This distinction was at the heart of several major EU legal decisions:

• CJEU Elite Taxi v. Uber (2017): In this landmark case stemming from Spain, the European Court of Justice held that Uber’s service is “in the field of transport” rather than an information society service . The court emphasized that Uber exerts control over key aspects of the service – notably setting fares centrally and imposing certain quality and conduct standards on drivers – such that the digital platform is not merely matchmaking riders and drivers, but is in fact integral to the transport offering . The result of this ruling is that Uber (and similar platforms) cannot claim the protections of the EU E-Commerce Directive for online intermediaries, and national or local transport regulations fully apply to them . In practical terms, EU member states are explicitly allowed to require ride platforms to obtain taxi or private hire licenses and comply with all transport rules, without running afoul of EU free-movement-of-services principles . The 2017 “Uber Spain” decision (finally decided in late 2017, often reported in 2018/2019) set the precedent that if an OTA behaves like a transport operator (e.g. setting transfer prices and arranging rides), it must follow local transport licensing laws just like any traditional cab company.

• Information Society Service (ISS) vs Transport: By contrast, the CJEU has also clarified when a platform remains a mere intermediary. In the Airbnb Ireland case (2019), the Court found that Airbnb — which provides an online interface for property rentals but does not set the rental rates or provide the accommodation itself or assign properties to clients — qualified as an ISS and not an estate agent . The key difference was that hosts (not Airbnb) determined the price and specifics of service. Similarly, in the Star Taxi App case (CJEU 2021), a Romanian ride-hailing app that connected licensed taxi drivers to passengers without imposing fares was deemed a pure intermediary service not subject to transport licensing – because drivers were already providing taxi services independently and the app merely offered an additional channel . These cases draw a legal line: an OTA or platform that does not set prices or centrally organize the service remain an intermediary under the E-Commerce Directive, meaning it wouldn’t itself need a transport license (though the actual transport providers still must be licensed).

• Implications for OTAs: If an OTA resells ground transfers with pre-fixed prices and controls the allocation of rides to drivers, it falls on the Uber side of this line, not the Airbnb side. Therefore, each EU country in which it operates can require the OTA to have a transport operator’s authorization. For example, in France, providing transportation services without a license violates the Code des Transports and led to UberPOP being banned. In Spain, acting as a transport intermediary without authorization breaches national transport law (as well as unfair competition law, as seen in the Uber case). Many countries have specific categories of licenses: some require a company acting as a dispatcher or organizer of rides to register as a transport company or taxi broker. In Greece, an OTA arranging transfers might need a tourism transport license or partner with a licensed travel agency . In sum, an OTA reselling transfers with fixed prices must either partner with duly licensed transport operators and connect them directly to clients or obtain its own license in each jurisdiction. Operating without the proper local license is a violation that can lead to injunctions, fines, or even criminal charges. Indeed, European regulators have shown a low tolerance for unlicensed transport services: UberPOP (which used unlicensed drivers) was banned or penalized in multiple countries , and even where licensed drivers were involved, Uber had to adjust its model (in Germany, courts required Uber to only work with licensed rental car companies as dispatchers) .

• Enforcement Examples: EU member state authorities and courts have actively enforced licensing laws against errant platforms. In France, a Paris court in 2016 fined Uber €800,000 for running an illegal taxi service via UberPOP and even convicted Uber executives for facilitating illegal transport without licenses (and for deceptive commercial practices toward customers) . In Germany, courts issued injunctions halting Uber services until compliance was assured – Uber was forced to change its model to partner only with licensed hire-car firms under threat of heavy fines . These actions show that an OTA flouting local transport licensing laws could be accused of running an “illegal taxi operation” and be subject to severe penalties or shutdown. National transport regulators or city officials (such as city taxi commissions, ministries of transport, etc.) can bring such cases, and there is no protection under EU law for a service that is classified as transport. In essence, once an OTA crosses into providing a transport service, it must “play by the rules” of each country – or risk bans and legal liability.

Consumer Protection Considerations

EU consumer protection law, much like the UK’s, mandates honesty and transparency in commercial practices. OTAs operating in EU countries must comply with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and the Consumer Rights Directive, among others. Potential issues include:

• Misleading Consumers about the Service: Presenting a resold transfer service as if it were fully licensed, insured, and legally compliant, when in fact the OTA has not secured the necessary permissions or is sidestepping regulations, can be deemed a misleading action or omission. As noted, authorities in France and Germany not only penalized Uber for licensing failures but also for deceiving consumers – providing rides “under the guise of legality” was considered a deceptive practice under consumer law . An OTA engaging in similar conduct in any EU country could face investigations by consumer protection agencies. For instance, Italy’s competition and market authority (which also handles consumer protection) has scrutinized ride platforms in the past for compliance issues. The European Commission coordinates a network (CPC Network) that allows consumer protection bodies across the EU to act against widespread infringements – an OTA operating EU-wide with misleading practices could find itself subject to an EU-wide enforcement action.

Competition Law and Unfair Advantage

At the EU level, competition law typically refers to antitrust enforcement (Articles 101 and 102 of TFEU) overseen by the European Commission or national competition authorities. OTAs reselling transfers don’t inherently violate antitrust rules unless they engage in anti-competitive agreements or abuse a dominant position. However, the issue raised in this context is the unfair competitive advantage gained by those who do not comply with legal requirements, versus those who do. This is often addressed through unfair competition laws at the national level or via regulatory action, rather than through EU Commission antitrust cases. Key points:

• Unfair Competition in Member States: Many EU countries allow businesses to sue competitors for engaging in illegal practices that give them an edge. For example, in Spain, Uber was sued under unfair competition law for operating without a taxi license (essentially, breaking the law to compete) . In Germany, taxi associations successfully obtained injunctions against Uber on the basis that Uber’s model violated transport laws and thus constituted an unlawful competitive act – Germany’s Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) permits such suits. These legal actions argue that compliance with regulation is a baseline market condition, and a company flouting those rules is competing on unequal, unfair terms. An OTA that resells transfers without complying could be subject to similar claims: a local shuttle company or taxi dispatch service could take the OTA to court for unfair competition, seeking to ban its operations until it complies. The precedent set by the CJEU’s Elite Taxi (Uber) decision bolsters these claims, as the highest court has affirmed that such platforms are subject to local transport laws – undermining any defense that they were simply innovative intermediaries. In essence, ignoring regulations is not a valid competitive strategy; it’s an illicit one, and competitors can challenge it.

• EU Competition (Antitrust) Perspective: If an OTA became dominant in the EU for ground transfers and continued to ignore rules (e.g. not paying VAT, not obtaining licenses), it’s conceivable that regulators might view this as part of an exclusionary strategy. For instance, not charging VAT could allow predatory pricing (undercutting rivals to gain market share). The European Commission has in other contexts considered regulatory evasion as a factor in competition cases (though usually combined with other behavior). Even without direct EU action, the European Commission has supported enforcement of national rules to ensure no competitive advantage from regulatory arbitrage. Recital 21 of the Services Directive explicitly notes transport is excluded and subject to sectoral regulation , reflecting an intent that compliance, not deregulation, governs competition in this sector. In practical terms, the Commission has left it to member states to police transport services, but it keeps an eye on the overall competitive landscape. Should an OTA’s non-compliance substantially affect cross-border competition, it could trigger EU-level discussions or infringement proceedings (though likely the first line of attack remains tax and licensing enforcement by states).

• Levelling the Playing Field: The cumulative effect of the legal developments in Europe is a move to level the playing field between traditional transport operators and new digital entrants. The message from both courts and regulators is that competitive advantage should come from innovation and efficiency within the bounds of law, not from avoiding the law. OTAs that have recognized this are adjusting their models (for example, by ensuring drivers are licensed and letting them set prices, some platforms remain on the right side of legality). Those that haven’t face legal risks. A platform that, say, fixes prices for airport transfers and dispatches drivers on its own terms is effectively operating as a transport company and will be forced to bear the same costs (taxes, licenses, insurance, compliance) as any other transport company – negating the short-term profit from avoidance. If they do not, they can be fined, injuncted, or even see their executives liable (as happened in France) . Thus, from a competition standpoint, enforcement of existing laws is ensuring that OTAs cannot use legal loopholes to unfairly undercut compliant businesses. In Europe’s single market, while innovation in travel services is welcome, it cannot come at the expense of fundamental legal protections and fair competition.

Conclusion

The resale of ground transportation services by OTAs and travel platforms sits at the intersection of e-commerce and highly regulated local transport industries. Both the United Kingdom and the European Union have made it clear that if a platform acts like a transport provider – setting prices, arranging rides, and controlling service quality – it will be treated as such under the law. Key legal takeaways include:

• Tax: OTAs must comply with VAT obligations (20% VAT in the UK and country-specific VAT in the EU) when providing transfers. Failure to collect or remit VAT where required is a violation that can lead to substantial liability . The trend in enforcement is to look beyond formal agent/principal labels and impose tax duties on the de facto service provider – as seen when UK courts and HMRC compelled Uber to start charging VAT . OTAs should use schemes like TOMS correctly or register in each jurisdiction to avoid tax evasion claims.

• Licensing: In the UK, private hire operator licensing is mandatory for anyone setting prices and selecting drivers. In the EU, national laws require transport intermediaries setting the prices and selecting the drivers to be licensed. Operating transfers without proper licenses is illegal and has led to injunctions, fines, and even criminal charges across Europe . Regulators from London’s TfL to Spain’s city authorities and France’s courts have shown they will enforce these requirements strictly.

• Consumer Protection: Misrepresenting an unlicensed or non-compliant service as legitimate is deemed a misleading practice under UK/EU consumer law . OTAs must be transparent about pricing (including VAT) and terms, and clearly identify who is providing the service. If consumers are misled about the nature of the service or left without clear recourse for problems, the platform could face legal action and reputational damage. Consumer law bolsters the requirement that OTAs operate above board and inform customers truthfully.

• Competition/Unfair Advantage: Ignoring legal obligations to gain a price or cost advantage is not a sustainable strategy – it invites lawsuits from competitors and intervention by authorities. European courts have effectively treated such behavior as unfair competition, removing any regulatory free-rides that OTAs might have enjoyed early on . The law seeks to ensure a level playing field where competition is based on service quality and efficiency, not on skirting rules. Any short-term gain from non-compliance can be nullified by legal penalties and the requirement to later conform (often at great expense).

In conclusion, OTAs reselling ground transfers must navigate a complex legal landscape. They should either structure their business strictly as marketplaces (letting local licensed carriers set prices, have a direct access to clients and handle tax – the true intermediary model) or be prepared to fully comply with all laws as a transport service operator. The UK and EU examples show that authorities are actively monitoring this space. The 2017 Uber (Spain) ruling and subsequent cases have cemented the principle that technology platforms are not above transport laws. An OTA that sets up transfer services without due diligence on tax and licensing is taking on significant legal risk. On the flip side, by ensuring compliance – obtaining necessary licenses, charging due taxes, and being truthful with consumers – OTAs can lawfully tap into the ground transport market and avoid the pitfalls that befell early ride-hailing platforms. The cost of compliance may be substantial, but it is the price of doing business legally in the realm of transportation, and it ultimately protects both consumers and fair competition in the market.

Sources:

• UK Statutes and Regulations: Local Government (Misc. Provisions) Act 1976; London Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998; VAT Act 1994 (as applicable to transport services); Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; Consumer Rights Act 2015.

• EU Law: Article 2(a) E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC; Services Directive 2006/123/EC (exclusion of transport); EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC; Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC; relevant national transport codes.

• Case Law & Enforcement:

• Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi v. Uber Spain (CJEU, Case C‑434/15, 2017) – Uber deemed transport service, not an ISS .

• Airbnb Ireland (CJEU, Case C‑390/18, 2019) – platform found to be a mere intermediary (contrast case) .

• Star Taxi App (CJEU, Case C‑62/19, 2021) – criteria for when a ride app remains an ISS .

• Uber Britannia Ltd v. Sefton MBC (EWHC (Admin) 2023) – UK High Court, booking entity is principal requiring operator licence .

• French Tribunal Correctionnel de Paris (2016) – UberPOP executives convicted for illegal transport and deceptive practices .

• German Court (2015, Frankfurt) – injunction against Uber for violating Passenger Transport Act .

• Regulatory statements: UK HMRC guidance on VAT for ride services ; European Commission statements on the collaborative economy and transport services.