欧盟的数字平台：Airbnb 的法律地位解析

The classification of digital platforms has become a cornerstone legal issue in the twenties, particularly in sectors where traditional regulatory frameworks intersect with technological innovation. One of the most debated questions is whether platforms like Airbnb should be considered merely as "information society services" under Directive 2015/1535 or whether they should be subject to the national regulations governing real estate and hospitality services so to say they are end service providers. This distinction influences the obligations imposed on such platforms and the extent to which national authorities can regulate their operations.

欧盟监管框架

Directive 2015/1535 defines an "information society service" as one that is:

1. 规定了薪酬、
2. 在远处
3. 通过电子手段、
4. 应收件人的个人要求。

一般来说，欧盟成员国不能对此类服务施加任意限制，包括要求提供商事先获得授权或许可，除非在特殊情况下经过特殊程序，需要通知欧盟委员会。

相反，不在此分类范围内的服务，如房地产租赁或接待服务，可能会受到国家法规的约束，包括许可、税收以及遵守当地有关财产使用的法律。这些要求因欧盟内不同国家而异。

Airbnb 案：法律审查（C-390/18）

2019 年 12 月，欧盟法院（CJEU）在以下案件中解决了这一问题 Airbnb Ireland UC 诉 AHTOP (Case C-390/18)。该案源于法国旅游协会（AHTOP）提出的质疑，该协会认为 Airbnb 应遵守适用于房地产中介的国家法规。

The CJEU ruled in favor of Airbnb, concluding that its primary service is to provide an "information society service" rather than a real estate service. The Court reached this conclusion based on several key factors:

1. Airbnb 通过数字平台充当房东和客人之间的中介。
2. 它不确定租赁价格，也不规定租赁协议的具体条款。它不参与最终产品的构成。 
3. 它并不拥有或管理其平台上列出的房产。
4. 它不直接提供接待服务，如清洁、维护或接待。
5. 除遵守当地法律外，它不要求东道方获得特定授权或资格。

Based on these factors, the Court ruled that Airbnb's primary service is intermediation and it is distinct from the actual provision of rental accommodation and should be classified as an information society service. As a result, Airbnb benefits from the protections offered under Directive 2000/31 (e-Commerce Directive), which limits the ability of Member States to impose restrictive regulations without adhering to EU notification procedures.

对数字平台的影响

The CJEU's ruling has significant implications for digital platforms operating in the accommodation and service sectors. Unlike Uber, which was classified as a transportation service, not recognised as ISS due to its involvement in price and product formation and its control over drivers and fares, Airbnb does not exert similar control over property owners and rental conditions nor Airbnb does not control prices. Therefore, it was recognized as an intermediary rather than a provider of real estate services.

不过，这一规定并不适用于所有平台。分类取决于具体标准，包括

1. 平台是否对服务提供商实施控制（如制定价格、规定条件或管理运营）。
2. 平台是否直接提供撮合之外的核心服务（如拥有资产、提供交通服务或维护出租物业）。
3. 服务提供商（如主机或驱动程序）能否在平台外独立运行。
4. 服务提供商是否试图规避适用法律（关于许可、注册等）。

法院在其他案件中做出了不同的裁决，例如在 Uber 案中，法院认为该公司在组织和提供运输服务方面发挥了重要作用。同样，在 明星出租车应用程序 case, the CJEU examined a ride-hailing app's role and determined that it constitutes an information service or a transportation provider.

Thus, the legal classification of digital platforms is highly dependent on their operational model and level of control over service providers. The Airbnb case demonstrates that platforms functioning primarily as intermediaries, without setting prices or dictating key service conditions, can qualify as information society services under EU law. However, platforms that exert significant control over service provision - such as Uber - may be classified as service providers subject to stricter national regulations.