This judgment of the La Rochelle judicial court was rendered on July 29, barely three months after the conviction on the appeal of another platform, Airbnb, to pay more than 8.6 million euros to the CDCIO in a similar case.
Another action against Booking
“We are delighted with this new victory which shows that all the platforms can be punished if they violate the law. The law is the same for everyone, both for Airbnb and the Leboncoin platform, ”commented Me Jonathan Bellaiche, who also has an action against Booking.com initiated by the Oléronnaise community. The latter is less important in terms of fines because this last platform proposed less nights in the heart of the island of Oléron than Airbnb and Leboncoin.
For Michel Parent, mayor of Château-d’Oléron and president of the CDCIO, “it is real satisfaction, even if it was predictable. This is a confirmation of the law, like what French justice had decided in our favor against Airbnb. This proves that even a small Atlantic island can bend large companies that do not play the game. We were very optimistic about this decision and we should now know around August 8 or 9 if Airbnb, it appeals and appealed in cassation. Recall that the CDCIO has chosen to invest the sums won in justice by offering aid (up to 10,000 euros) to the Oléron owners who will agree to convert their tourist furnished for the year.
The judgment ordered the company Leboncoin to pay 380,000 euros in civil fines by sanctioning repeated shortcomings to its obligation to collect the tax for 384 stays reserved between 2020 and 2022 via the platform. To this sum are added two civil fines of 10,000 euros each, under the breach of the obligation to repay the tourist tax over the same period and the breach of the obligation to declare, as well as 10,000 euros in legal costs.
The CDCIO demanded more than 1 million euros in civil fines as part of this procedure.
Leboncoin invoked the right to error
Leboncoin, which connects hosts with tourists for reserved and paid housing rentals online, notably invoked the right to make mistakes.
But the argument was rejected by the court on the grounds that, in the exchanges it had with the community, the platform “did not invoked any error but disputed the taxation to the real” of the stays concerned, by refusing to communicate the files necessary for its implementation.
