looks at the reviews as a whole, not at the individual one; on the basis of a global examination, he forms his own conviction21. Moreover, in every subjective statement, there is an ineradicable discretionary content. In fact, “the almost total freedom in the power to review (...) broadens the possibility of using the platform and increases the overall number of reviews (...), which contribute to the overall reliability of the system”22. In essence, sophisticated controls would not eliminate, but contain the number of tendentious comments. However, at the same time, they would degrade the function of the mechanism, whose aim is to produce many reviews, so that attempts to introduce misrepresentations would be insignificant and uneconomic. To summarise, the service offered by Tripadvisor and, more generally, by companies operating similar platforms is to provide various ratings on a wide range of establishments. It lacks the aptitude to capture actual attention, as emphasised in case law23, but, anyway, there is no intention to direct choices towards specific establishments. The company “offers useful input to the consumer when planning a trip”24. Therefore, there is no conditioning of the customer’s behaviour by inducing him to enter into a contract. The average consumer is curious about other people’s views on specific services, but is aware that not every piece of information is true and, in any case, does not make his choice exclusively dependent on a single opinion and, if he did, would behave irrationally. Besides, it is difficult to review the content of subjective judgements, which, as such, reflect individual tastes. With these platforms, one does not sell a product for which misleading advertising could have a disparaging effect on competitors and, therefore, consumer protection is not required. The company collects ratings on establishments registered on the site, for which it does not carry out a promotional activity; in fact, it does not invite people to visit the reviewed establishments and, thus, there is no direct link with the consumer’s deliberations. This phenomenon was assessed from the point of view of safeguarding the interests of the user, with little attention paid to accommodation facilities, 21 See Jury Resolution No. 62 of 7 September 2015, in Dir. ind., 2015, 620, according to which “claims are assessed in the overall context of the message and in relation to the characteristics of the recipients, which influence their ability to decode it”. 22 See Bonaventura - Lazzara, Antitrust versus TripAdvisor: secondo il Tar la recensione “falsa” va bene, in Riv. it. dir. tur., 2015, 147 ff.. 23 See Tar Lazio, Rome, sec. I, 26 July 2018, no. 8470, in Giur. it. rep., 2018. 24 See Bonaventura - Lazzara, Antitrust versus TripAdvisor: secondo il Tar la recensione “falsa” va bene, loc. cit., 150 ff.. 27 RESTAURANT CONTRACTS AND GASTRONOMY
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==