656 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM In general, the administrative regulations respond to the concerns and criticisms that the VUT have awakened in recent times. 3.1. Protection of consumers and users or minimum quality in the provision of services In the absence of an adequate delimitation between a seasonal lease and a tourist accommodation contract, in certain cases (in which the only thing that is contracted is the transfer of the property, not the provision of services), we can hardly consider, for example, the problem of consumer protection or the guarantee of a minimum quality in the provision of services. This regulation has never been applicable to rents because it has no basis. Thus, it does not make sense to speak of “intrusiveness” or “unfair competition” because the contract has a different objective: what is offered in the market is a good, not a product accompanied by a provision of service. The objective of guaranteeing a minimum quality of service or the protection of consumers is justified when we are dealing with a situation comparable to a common professional economic activity, whereby a tourist accommodation is provided. But platforms do more than rent homes. They also offer paired services: deferred payment, instalments, professional photography services, etc. For this reason, it seems reasonable to differentiate between individuals and professionals. The first would be applied to the seasonal lease and professionals, the tourism legislation of VUT. The novelties provided by the tourist accommodation through platforms such as Airbnb are: access to detailed information, photographs and a system featuring reviews and ratings by the users themselves. The “market places” are impregnated with the idea of a free culture in which the individuals themselves order their activity, self-regulate and generate their own evaluation and qualification systems, making the need for the traditional regulation and intervention of the organization increasingly less justifiable. However, in our view, the intervention of the Public Administration is justifiable, given that it would be an activity comparable to the traditional tourist activity of providing accommodations (in the case that they were professionals and were dedicated, as usual, to it). Art. 10 of the Canary Law that regulates the minimum requirements of the VUT was challenged. The Chamber of Administrative Litigation of the Canary Islands Supreme Court, in its judgment of March 21, 2017, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that “it could not be appreciated that the requirement
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==