Austrian OGH: Information Obligations of Booking Platforms

Jul 23, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) had to decide whether an online booking platform must provide customers, after they book private accommodation, with the landlord’s name and address for service. The central question was whether this information qualifies as essential under unfair competition law and therefore may not be withheld.

In the case in question, a consumer protection organisation entitled to bring proceedings under Section 14 of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, hereinafter UWG) brought a claim against a platform for arranging accommodation. Whilst the relevant information was available for bookings made with commercial providers, customers booking with private landlords were not provided with the name and address of the contracting party, either in the advert, during the booking process, or immediately afterwards. The platform only made this information available upon individual request.

Name and address are essential details

The claimant argued that consumers can only effectively enforce their contractual claims – such as warranty claims, claims for damages or cancellation claims – if they know who their contractual partner is. The failure to disclose this information therefore constituted a withholding of material information in accordance with Section 2(4) of the UWG.

The OGH concurred with this view. It held that a consumer’s decision does not end with the conclusion of the contract. The subsequent enforcement of contractual rights also constitutes a ‘business decision’ within the meaning of the UWG. Consequently, the name and the address of the accommodation provider at which legal process may be served are of considerable importance, because without this information, claims against the contracting party cannot, as a rule, be effectively asserted.

Notification immediately after booking

In the OGH‘s view, it is not sufficient for the platform to disclose the data only upon the customer’s request. Instead, the information must be supplied without delay following the booking and without any separate request. The fact that the platform sometimes did not disclose the data until weeks after a request was made makes it more difficult for consumers to enforce their rights.

The OGH likewise rejected objections based on data protection considerations. Since the platform already processes the relevant personal data and discloses it upon request, the GDPR does not preclude automatic disclosure after a booking has been made. Such processing serves to comply with a statutory information obligation and is therefore justified.

4 Ob 28/26k (20 May 2026)