the reviews were authentic, or they did not inform the consumers about the way the reviews had been collected in the first place, as well as how they managed to block fake reviews, or whether the reviews were paid or not.35,36 The study also suggests that consistent and transparent provision of information offered by platforms to consumers can increase consumer confidence on the online tourism services market.37 Clear and comprehensible information about the criteria for the ranking of research results, the information about the contractual identity of the other party, i.e. whether the contractual party is a trader who provides consumer protection rights, are all elements which contribute to the consumer’s trust and the probability that a product or a service will be selected. The information that the reviewers have actually used the product,38 the necessary data on the reviewer's identity, a disclosure of both positive and negative online reviews,39 and the information on the number of reviews,40 also have a positive impact on the selection of tourism services. In brief, empirical research shows that increased online transparency of platforms may result in three major effects on the development of the online tourism services market: a positive impact on making decisions, increased trust and confidence in the online environment and enhanced probability of product/service selection.41 However, in the law of the Union, there are no specific rules on information requirements for online tourism services markets and online platforms. The EU rules on information requirements apply and are valid for all providers of online marketplaces when entering into B2C distance contracts, or for the providers of online intermediate services within the framework of business relations with the users of their services. There is a whole range of various rules laid down in numerous EU acts.42 It is doubtful, however, whether the application of general information requirements, valid for all distance consumer contracts, can meet very high transparency standards on which any efficient protection of consumers on the online tourism services market strongly depends. Due to a decisive impact of rankings and reviews on the selection of tourism services, a question arises whether the rules, now generally providing for the obligation of informing about the parameters determining ranking and the responsibility of platforms for illicit content, can ensure a fair online environment and the provision of objective, transparent and reliable information in the sector of tourism. In the text, the author analyses various methods and legal instruments by which transparent information of consumers in the EU is provided via the existing platforms on the online tourism services market. Special 35 See European Commission: 2021 – sweep on online consumer reviews (hereinafter: 2021-‘sweep’ on online consumer reviews). For example, it was confirmed that almost two thirds of online shops, marketplaces, booking websites, search engines and comparison service sites analysed triggered doubts about the reliability of the reviews. In 65% of the websites (144), the authorites could not confirm that traders were doing enough to ensure that reviews are authentic, i.e. posted by consumers that actually used the product or service. In 47% of the websites (104), they did not inform consumers how reviews were collected and processed. In 53% of websites, there was no information about how fake reviews had been prevented and 79 % of websites (176) did not mention that incentivised reviews resulting from a monetary reward were prohibited by their internal policies, or, if that was not the case, how they ensured they were flagged as incentivised. Taken from the 2021- ‘sweep’ on online consumer reviews. 36 In the same way, in 2018, a ‘sweep’ on price transparency and drip pricing showed that 60% of 560 e-commerce websites offering a variety of goods, services and digital content (including travel services) contained irregularities regarding the respect of EU consumer law, predominantly in relation to how the price and special offers were presented. See: European Commission: Online Shopping: Commission and consumer protection authorities call for clear information on prices and discounts, Brussels, 22 February 2019. 37 See Study, 2014, p. 127. 38 On the impact of the price and information on whether the contractual party is a trader, and on the implications for the consumer’s rights and the probability of selecting the product, see Study/Final Report/2018, pp. 33, 34, 46. 39 Ibid pp. 16, 39, 46. 40 Study 2020, 48, 49. 41 Study 2018, 48. 42 Since service providers offering information are involved, general rules on information requirements in Directive on Electronic Commerce (e.g. Arts 5, 6, 14, 15) and on the provider’s in Services Directive (e.g. Art. 22) apply to information duties of online platforms. To the relations between online intermediation platforms and the business users’ information duties, the rules on information duties from P2B Regulation apply (e.g. Art..5.) To the relations between online marketplaces and consumers, special provisions on information duties laid down in Consumer Rights Directive/CRD (e.g. Art. 6a) and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive/UCPD (e.g. Arts 7/4a, 7/6, Annex I/p.11a, p. 23 a-c apply).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==