EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 7.11.2022 SWD(2022) 350 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on data collection and sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 {COM(2022) 571 final} - {SEC(2022) 393 final} - {SWD(2022) 348 final} - {SWD(2022) 349 final}



Contents 1.Introduction: Economic, Political and legal context 2.Problem definition 3.Why should the EU act? 4.Objectives: What is to be achieved? 5.What are the available policy options? 6.What are the impacts of the policy options? 7.How do the options compare? 8.Preferred option 9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 2a: Results of the additional targeted survey to Public authorities Annex 2b: Results of the additional Targeted Survey to Platforms Annex 3: Who is affected and how? Annex 4: Analytical methods & SME Test Annex 5: Description of the sector Annex 6: List of existing and planned instruments Annex 7: Examples of Litigation

Annex 8: Overview of Registration Procedures and Requirements on Platforms concerning STR in EU Member States Annex 9: Literature review



Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition B&B Bed and Breakfast accommodation B2G Business to Government CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CoC Code of Conduct DAC7 7th Directive on the Administrative Cooperation DSA Digital Services Act DMA Digital Markets Act EU European Union GDPR General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 IA Impact Assessment IIA Inception Impact Assessment TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union SDG Sustainable Development Goal STR Short-term accommodation rental SME Small and medium sized enterprises including micro enterprises



1.Introduction: Economic, Political and legal context 1.1Economic and societal context Short-term accommodation rentals (STRs) are accommodations used for short-stays by guests. STRs may take the form of a room in a dwelling, an entire apartment or house where very minimal complementary services (e.g. cleaning services, breakfast), if any, are provided on location. STR services consist of the repeated letting (on a daily, weekly or monthly basis), for remuneration, whether on a professional or non-professional basis, of furnished accommodation. STRs have existed for many years as an alternative to more traditional accommodation services such as hotels. The number of STRs is however increasing significantly across the EU, a trend, which has been confirmed during the COVID crisis. For example, the number of listings on Airbnb grew from 2 500 listings in 2007, to over 5.6 million listings in 2021. The growth of STRs is mainly driven by the emergence of online platforms, which allow hosts to reach out directly to guests from all over the world and facilitate bookings by the latter. ‘Platformisation’ has greatly contributed to the diversification of the STR offer, both in terms of property rented out (room in or entire apartment or primary or secondary residences) and locations. In 2019, 512 million guest nights were booked in the EU via the main online platforms (Airbnb, Booking.com, Expedia Group and TripAdvisor), representing an increase of 15.8% compared with 2018. Together, the four online platforms referred to above represent approximately 83% of the STR segment in terms of number of guest nights booked, with Airbnb leading with an average traffic share of 55%. There are also many smaller STR online platforms, many of which have developed in the EU. Several of them offer more ‘niche’ services, focusing on specific types of STR accommodation (e.g. Fairbnb, promoting fair and sustainable hosting) or STRs located in specific geographical areas. Some smaller players also combine intermediation services with management services. It is estimated that there are a total of 710 online platforms in the EU, many of which operate cross-border. New profiles of hosts have also developed. Whilst STRs mainly started as an offer from one individual to another individual (peer-to-peer), the share of ‘professional’ hosts, letting several properties on a more commercial basis, has more than doubled between 2014 and 2020, with professional hosts accounting today for more than 45% of the offers and representing the 13% of all hosts. A small minority of them have STR listings in several EU Member States: between 2014 and 2019, 2.5% of EU hosts have offered STR services in more than one Member State. It should be noted that 16.3% of the hosts that responded to the public consultation stated that they offer STR services in an EU country that is not their country of residence/place of establishment. STRs create opportunities for guests, hosts and the entire tourism ecosystem. Guests appreciate STRs because they increase choice and, often, provide more competitive prices, better facilities and better locations. For hosts and other service providers active in the tourism sector, STRs are a source of income and employment. Some public authorities also help promote STRs, e.g., as a means to attract tourism to more rural or undervalued areas (in France, for example, rural areas have developed partnerships to create 15 000 new STRs), as a means to complement the hotel infrastructure and/or to pursue other objectives, such as the renovation of buildings. The development of the STR segment has also boosted the development of a multitude of auxiliary service providers, such as companies offering management, cleaning and/or reception services, some of which operate cross-border. However, the growth of STRs is also triggering concerns and challenges. STRs have deeply impacted certain areas, in particular touristic urban and coastal areas in the EU. Public authorities and citizens in these areas have expressed concerns, ranging from increase in nuisances by tourists, such as noise, congestion and waste, to negative impacts on price and availability of long-term housing. Studies point at a correlation between the increasing number of STRs in certain neighbourhoods and the affordability of housing and/or the quality of life in those neighbourhoods, although findings are mixed. STRs also raise concerns related to health and safety and tax compliance. For representatives of hotels, STRs create allegedly unfair competition in certain areas, as they are not subject to similar requirements as hotels. Associations (e.g. of local residents) often denounce the negative impacts of STRs on their neighbourhoods. 1.2Political context and legal context As a result of the abovementioned challenges, STRs are increasingly regulated, at national, regional and/or local level. Public authorities have taken actions to enhance the transparency of the STR segment, by imposing, for instance, registration requirements and/or by requesting online platforms to share data. In some cities, steps have been taken to limit the offer of STRs by imposing a variety of market access restrictions (e.g. zoning restriction, limit on the number of nightly stays). In some areas STRs have been subject to outright bans. STR regulations are often being challenged in court however, often on grounds of incompatibility with EU law (notably the Services Directive and the e-Commerce Directive). This situation has triggered increasing calls for action at EU level. In 2016 and 2018, the Commission offered guidance on how to design proportionate market access rules and obligations on online platforms, via its Communication on the collaborative economy and the development of policy principles. A number of stakeholders did not consider this sufficient, however, as exemplified by calls for more legal certainty and transparency coming from the Council and the Parliament. Recently, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in its Cali Apartments decision has confirmed that under the TFEU and the Services Directive public authorities can impose market access restrictions on STRs in order to protect public interest objectives, such as combating the long-term rental housing shortage, as long as the rules adopted are proportionate. In this context, the CJEU emphasized the importance of available data and analysis for proportionate policy making. However, public authorities struggle to have reliable data. A first step to obtain specific data on STRs at EU level was achieved in 2020, when the Commission signed a landmark agreement with Airbnb, Booking, Expedia Group and Tripadvisor, to publish data on STRs offered via these online platforms across the EU. These online platforms now provide regular statistical/aggregated data on the number of nights booked and the number of guests, per municipality in the EU. The Digital Services Act and the taxation transparency requirements under DAC7 will also help to bring more transparency for public authorities on STRs, without however fully addressing the specific problems and drivers of this initiative.

In its SME strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe, the Commission announced that it would look into developing a framework for STRs. In its IIA published in September 2020, the Commission identified problems related to a lack of transparency and data sharing, and problems related to burdensome market access restrictions for hosts. Stakeholder consultations following the IIA clarified a need for EU action to bring more transparency and clearer rules on data access and sharing, whilst pointing at the local dimension of market access requirements for hosts. In the context of the Transition Pathway for Tourism and the Urban Agenda, stakeholders also called for the adoption of an EU framework bringing more transparency to the STR segment. It has therefore been decided to focus, as a matter of priority, on problems relating to transparency via a dedicated initiative. As will be explained, it is expected that the initiative will help reduce unjustified market access restrictions for hosts as well. The Commission will continue to monitor market access restrictions and might take steps (including possible guidance) at a later stage. Any action under this initiative will seek to address gaps and overcome remaining uncertainties in a targeted manner, to facilitate a balanced development of STRs. It will be in line with, and contribute to, the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDG’), in particular SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), by giving public authorities the tools and the data to regulate the STR sector in a proportionate and sustainable way. It will also support the proposed measure from the Conference on the Future of Europe to “invest in an economy based on tourism and culture, including the many small destinations in Europe”. It will complement and build on all existing legal instruments be in line with EU competition law, international trade commitments and the proposed European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles. 2.Problem definition 2.1 What are the problems? This impact assessment focuses on two interrelated problems, which both concern transparency. Public authorities that are concerned by STRs need specific and granular data about hosts and their offers to be able to monitor, regulate and control the fast-moving STR segment. Consultation results show that a large majority of public authorities across the EU need reliable data on STRs. Needs for data have been expressed by public authorities from 20 Member States, reflecting the importance of STR bookings in these areas. In response to a targeted survey, 72 out of 80 authorities said they needed reliable data on STRs. Needs are expressed by all types of public authorities, mainly cities but also regional authorities, and to a lesser extent by national authorities. Among the authorities that require data, the type of data needed is very similar across the EU. They need identification data about hosts (i.e., who is renting out) and about the accommodation rented out (in particular address, type of real estate unit and accommodation capacity) to understand who is renting out what and where, and verify compliance with local rules (e.g., local health and safety requirements). Public authorities wanting to monitor and control STRs also need activity data, that is the number of nights each accommodation is rented out for and the number of guests welcomed. Activity data aim to trace and measure the activity of STR service providers, helping public authorities to monitor tourism flows, design appropriate policy responses and enforce the rules. Survey results indicate that public authorities need activity data on a very regular basis, at least once a month (29 out of 80 authorities) or once per year (14), with a significant minority (16) asking for such data in real time and 3 authorities requesting data on a daily basis. Public authorities often use a variety of means to obtain data, with diverse efficiency results. The most used and also most successful tool for public authorities to obtain identification data is the use of a registration system, whereby hosts offer details about who they are and the accommodation they offer. Activity data, however, cannot be obtained via registration schemes. Public authorities tend to turn to platforms to obtain activity data. Only 16 out of 80 authorities in the targeted survey indicated that they oblige hosts to report their activity ex-post. This can be explained by the fact that the data received from online platforms is considered more reliable, as hosts may not always declare properly their activity, and/or easier to manage one source of data instead of data from individual hosts). In cases where data is received from hosts, public authorities may need to cross-check it with data from online platforms. At present, there are two main problems relating to data generation and data sharing on STRs. First, online platforms are increasingly confronted with numerous and divergent data sharing requests and or type of transparency requirements (such as an obligation to display of registration numbers). Second, public authorities struggle to get the data they need about STRs in an efficient manner. These problems have a series of negative consequences, as will be explained below. Problem 1: Online platforms are confronted with numerous and divergent requests for transparency and data sharing on STRs creating market fragmentation and barriers Online platforms, in particular those operating in more than one city or Member State and having more data, are increasingly confronted with a variety of national and local rules concerning data sharing requirements and other transparency obligations (such as obligations to display registration numbers). A growing number of public authorities are putting in place regulations to collect specific STR data from online platforms and in some places, authorities have entered into voluntary agreements with platforms to obtain data. Also outside these frameworks, authorities increasingly reach out to platforms with requests for data. This is confirmed by the survey targeted for public authorities (out of 80 public authorities replying, 33 state that their national law has rules allowing them to obtain data from platforms, nine state to have voluntary agreements with platforms). This is an EU-wide phenomenon which appears to affect the large majority of platforms: requests come from almost all over the EU and from all levels of public authority (national, regional or local level). For example, based on the 15 replies received to a targeted survey sent to online platforms, 12 online platforms declared that they have received at least one data request from a public authority. Not only larger platforms are requested to share data, also small platforms are. In terms of numbers of data requests received, online platforms indicate that, in 2017, they have received a total of 13 data requests from public authorities. This number has increased over the years, with 43 requests received in 2018, 616 in 2019, 1 732 for 2020 and 869 so far for 2021. While the core type of data requested is similar, platforms declare that the data requests otherwise diverge in terms of frequency, origin of the data request (the type of authority), additional information or evidence requested (in addition to the core data set) and procedural requirements/technical means used to request and transfer the data. Data requests from public authorities for public policy purposes often have a regional or local focus, concern specific information and frequencies and thus are different by their very nature. Increasing and divergent requests, combined with regulatory complexity and a lack of legal certainty, make it difficult and costly, in particular for smaller online platforms who would like to expand their services in other Member States, to enter markets and/or scale up. In their response to the targeted survey, 7 online platforms indicated they have already denied a data request from a public authority, mainly for legal and cost-related reasons. Platforms are also confronted with diverging requirements to display information on their web interface, such as e.g., registration numbers, although such requirements are not always complied with (see below, under the drivers). This market fragmentation affects small, medium and larger platforms which operate in several cities or have a cross-border activity, or have the intention to do so. Indeed, this is not a problem that affects only larger operators. Evidence points to the fact that also smaller platforms active in this sector operate cross-border. In addition, fragmentation also limits the capacity of local platforms to expand their operations to other markets. Neither network effects nor economies of scale can develop in fragmented markets, where the potential numbers of users and transactions are limited by the reduced dimension of local or national markets and by the existing barriers to market integration. Problem 2: Public authorities struggle to get the data they need about STRs Consultation results show that public authorities have similar needs with regards to a core set of data (identification of the host, the accommodation and the activity), while certain public authorities can require additional information or evidence based on the local needs. Public authorities report that they use different sources to obtain this data: registration schemes for hosts, data from platforms, reporting from hosts, or independent data sources. This consultation also indicates that public authorities that need data have difficulties in obtaining them, and often end up with insufficient, incomplete or inaccurate data on STR. This is not the case for other forms of accommodation such as hotels. Out of 80 replies from public authorities to the targeted consultation, 77 declared they have difficulties in getting data. Problems occur at all levels of government, national, regional and local, and problems relate to both identification and activity data. These findings are also corroborated by a study carried out in 12 large touristic cities (from 12 Member States). Whilst the situation may vary across and even within Member States, public authorities report similar difficulties across the EU, including delays, oppositions or rejections of their data requests. In spite of national, regional or local initiatives to obtain data, public authorities are often confronted with several data gaps. Public authorities put two main reasons forward to explain why they are not able to obtain the data they need: insufficient level of cooperation of online platforms, and the difficulties in enforcing registration schemes, in particular without the cooperation of online platforms. These causes are further explained below.

2.2 What are the drivers? Several root causes lead to the two main problems identified. Driver 1: Registration schemes differ widely and are often not complied with As mentioned above, registration schemes have proven to be an effective way for public authorities to obtain identification data. Registration numbers, granted per accommodation, are a key tool to enforce registration schemes. However, there are a few challenges connected to registration schemes. First, there is a significant level of divergence of registration schemes across (and sometimes within) Member States. An increasing number of national or local authorities have put in place registration schemes. Registration schemes now exist in 22 Member States and at various levels (national, regional and/or locally) and other Member States are considering introducing them too. Some Member States have registration schemes at local level (e.g. the Netherlands, with currently nine local registration schemes, France with over 50 local registration schemes), or both at regional and local levels (e.g., Spain has regional registration schemes in place in 19 regions and at least 6 local registration schemes). Registration requirements differ however significantly both in terms of procedural and substantive requirements. Some authorities impose particularly burdensome requirements (e.g., requirements to submit a variety of documents) or procedures. This, in turn, can have a chilling effect on the number of hosts, and hence on the business opportunities for online platforms. In addition, public authorities also impose diverging requirements on platforms to co-operate in the enforcement of registration schemes (e.g., diverging requirements relating to the control on and/or display of registration numbers). This is particularly burdensome for online platforms. Second, according to public authorities who answered the public consultation, hosts do not systematically register, even where an obligatory registration scheme is in place. This may be because they are not aware of the obligation to register, or, if they are, they chose not to comply and are not technically prevented from offering their accommodation on online platforms without registering (or in other words, online platforms allow hosts without a registration number to publish their accommodation on the platform). Research indicated that 87% of Berlin listings on the AirBnB platform did not include a registration number, and it appears that this trend is widespread across the EU. Non-compliance with registration requirements is not only a problem for public authorities, but may negatively affect platforms as well. In certain jurisdictions, hosts experience challenges in understanding and completing the registration procedures. Public consultation results also show that platforms are not always aware of registration requirements, in particular where schemes are local and are changing. In addition, registration requirements are often not being taken seriously by hosts. Registration avoidance most often occurs where online platforms do not cooperate with public authorities to share data or do not require (and then display) registration numbers when a host is listing its accommodation on their websites, even when they are required to do so . Public authorities cannot identify hosts who do not register and need therefore data from online platforms intermediating STR services. As a result, the ability of public authorities to enforce registration obligations is weakened, and they are likely to rely even more on data from online platforms to carry out checks on the legality of the offers. The cooperation of online platforms is therefore key to reduce the burden resulting from data sharing requests. When online platforms disregard their obligations, some public authorities have decided to initiate legal proceedings leading in some cases to fines under national law. Driver 2: Lack of effective and enforceable legal frameworks, standards and tools for sharing data on STRs Even where effective registration systems are in place, public authorities struggle to have complete sets of data on STRs, offering them insights on STR activity on their territories, for different reasons. Data requests from public authorities are often rejected by online platforms, notably because of an alleged absence of a (clear and undisputed) legal basis for data sharing (48% of the replies). Online platforms also have pointed out they sometimes do not have the requested data (14% of the answers), or have technical (e.g. mismatch between data sets and data collection systems) and practical problems. Platforms also point at the heavy resources they needed to respond to data-sharing requests (costs, manpower and time). In fact, diverging national data sharing requirements create fragmentation and additional complexity for online platforms operating cross-border. Whilst the number of data requests is starkly increasing, the type, the format and the frequency of the data requested by public authorities differs across the EU. This creates a lack of traceability and interoperability of the data. In particular, a lack of standardisation and legal framework including an agreement for a shared identifier (e.g. the registration number, the host’s name and address, the cadastral number of the STR) used by both hosts and online platforms makes it difficult to have compatible data and easy to process. This implies that the same data produced by different stakeholders might not be reconcilable because data is not generated and stored in the same format (or, more generally, with the same IT standards). In addition, electronic tools to share data might not be in place or may be inadequate. For example, large amount of data might be shared by online platforms through inefficient and inappropriate tools – e.g. excel sheets. The absence of a standard for data sharing might result in corrupted data. Finally, using non-automated data sharing systems increase the probability of data corruption. This creates extra costs, possibly mistakes and translates into further delay of the availability of data about STR activity. All this leads to additional barriers for online platforms to operate in the single market. Driver 3 - Newly introduced data sharing requirements are not sufficiently timely and granular and data is not reaching local authorities A number of initiatives have been taken recently at the EU level to address the calls for greater transparency on STRs, and on the collaboration of online platforms in this regard. However, they still do not fully address the needs of public authorities. In March 2020, ESTAT entered into a voluntary data sharing agreement with the four main online platforms. The agreement allows ESTAT to obtain key data from these online platforms and publish experimental statistics on STRs. Public authorities thus have access to data about STRs offered via these online platforms. This offers an interesting but yet not fully complete picture of the sector, because the data that ESTAT receives and publishes is aggregate (non-personal) data and therefore not granular, detailed and timely enough, in particular for local authorities, for policy making and law enforcement purposes. Public authorities therefore impose further obligations on online platforms to share data with them, which can, in turn, create barriers for these platforms to operate in the single market. Some online platforms have also started making available aggregated data through dedicated portals. Public authorities consider however that this data is often incomplete or difficult to process and not sufficient for policy-making purposes, in particular at local level, where much targeted measures, which may differ depending on the districts or streets concerned, are often needed to regulate STRs. Aggregated data may for example provide a number of STRs but not the type of STRs (room or apartment…) and do not provide any information on the owner (natural or legal persons), which are often essential for policy-making purposes. In the area of taxation, under DAC7, new rules create an obligation for online platforms to report the income earned by sellers pursuant to, among other activities, the rental of immovable property on a short-term basis. A significant part of the information to be reported by online platforms is relevant for the enforcement of STR rules, too. However, this data is not immediately reusable. A legal basis would have to be introduced in each national legal system in order to allow the transfer of data from the tax authorities to the relevant public authorities enforcing STR rules. Data under DAC7 may also not be sufficiently granular, as it does not provide information on the number of nights and the number of guests hosted. In addition, the reporting frequency under DAC7 is annual, after closure of the fiscal year, and that is too late for STR purposes (as explained above). Finally, whilst the DSA imposes certain obligations on platforms to respond to specific requests for information, it does not require online platforms to share data with public authorities on a systematic basis. In addition, the DSA requires online platforms to enable the display of registration numbers only for hosts that qualify as ‘traders’ (a term which does not necessarily cover all hosts active in the short-term rental sector) and this may lead to enforcement gaps in a sector, like the STR sector, where hosts are often private individuals offering assets or services on an occasional peer-to-peer basis.

2.3 What are the consequences? As a consequence of the insufficient and inefficient gathering of STR data by public authorities, and the fact that online platforms are confronted with numerous and divergent requests for data sharing and obligations to display registration numbers, both public authorities and online platforms are faced with burdensome efforts (in terms of costs and time) to get and share data. Online platforms have stressed the increasing costs related to data requests. Current costs for online platforms to manage each request for data submitted by a public authority concerning STRs on its geographical territory are estimated to amount on average to EUR 13 549 and take from one to three months to be processed and dispatched. These costs result from the diversity of the requests in terms of data requested, format, frequency and technical means used to transmit the data. Resources spent by online platforms to handle data requests in 2019 is estimated to have amounted to around EUR 30 million. Over recent years and due to the increasing number of data requests, the number of requests that online platforms have answered and the associated costs have also increased significantly. The fragmentation of data sharing requests and obligations to display registration numbers increases the costs for online platforms, which in turn, may affect their ability to expand cross-border and offer their services in the internal market. Public authorities, in turn, indicate that the data they receive from online platforms often needs to be double checked, as there can be incomplete or contain incorrect values even for identification data, and that no clear improvement in quality has been observed over the years. As a result, they have to continue collecting data with techniques such as web scraping, which are time consuming and costly (for example, a big EU city signed a yearly contract in 2022 of EUR 7 500 to collect this kind of data from online platforms). The insufficient and inefficient gathering of STR data also creates difficulties for public authorities to design proportionate STR rules, even if other factors (e.g. political factors) can affect the design of such rules. For example, the city of Barcelona explained that before they started a collaboration with online platforms to obtain data on STRs, there were around 6 000 illegal listings in the city; the exact location of such listings was impossible to determine without data from online platforms; the city had to rely on citizens to flag the illegal activity; and the absence of data possibly made it difficult to design new tourism and housing policies. There is a vast body of literature confirming that better regulation and sound policies must be based on evidence and data, in any sector. The CJEU has also stressed the importance of data for proportionate policy making. There are also a number of initiatives aiming at improving policy making, e.g. urban planning processes, with data. Ill-designed STR rules can have a negative impact on the STR / tourism ecosystem. Finally, these problems can contribute to poor enforcement of local STR rules, where such rules exist. As mentioned earlier, data is needed for enforcement purposes. For instance, where no registration exists, authorities may simply not be aware of STR offers on their territories; where registration exists but online platforms fail to display registration numbers, identifying illegal STR listings (i.e. without valid registration number) may be challenging for authorities. In addition, where online platforms do not share activity data, authorities are unable to assess whether possible restrictions (in terms of numbers of nights a property can be rented out, or how many guests can be accommodated) are being respected. The problems identified can therefore create problems of illegal STRs in local markets and possibly problems of unfair competition (e.g. with hotels). 2.4 How will the problem evolve? STRs are expected to stay and some studies project a possible significant growth of STRs in the EU. Public authorities will need to monitor the development of STRs and new trends like the greater use for teleworking or increased professionalization of hosts. As STRs may develop in new locations, more authorities may need to carry out monitoring activities and adopt rules (either limiting their presence to combat negative societal externalities or to promote STRs in order to attract more tourists). They will have to ensure compliance with their rules and be able to adapt them swiftly once they are in place. For these reasons, it is likely that public authorities will need more, better quality and sufficient detailed data, on a more frequent basis in order to pursue their policy objectives in a justified and proportionate manner. The City of Porto for example indicated that they needed more data on the compliance of the accommodation with health and safety regulations. Online platforms are likely to receive an increasing number of diverse data requests from local and national public authorities and could be subject to new obligations to share data. This will increase burdens on platforms, in particular smaller platforms. However, it is likely that online platforms would not be able to address all the requests they receive, or address them swiftly, particularly should it remain unclear on what legal basis they can share data to comply with the request. As public authorities would not get the data they request, litigation would likely increase as public authorities could try to turn to courts to force data sharing and to ensure that requests to delist illegal listings are acted on. In order to avoid such litigation, online platforms may agree to share data on a case-by-case basis to avoid the risks if they do not reply to public authorities’ requests. Only case-by-case solutions would therefore be provided that may be detrimental especially for smaller / less organised urban areas that are not able to negotiate with big online platforms or do not have in place a legal framework to request data. In the absence of change, the size of the data gap for public authorities could continue to increase. The data needs of public authorities may never be fully addressed, and more and more authorities will experience the same problems (costs, time) when they try to get the data from online platforms. This may limit their ability to enforce existing rules and deprive them of relevant information e.g., on trends or limit the possibility to compare their local situations with others. Possibly, future STRs rules will not be based on evidence. Public authorities would still be required to combine several methods to collect data, including web scraping, and several types of data sets which may not be interoperable. Inefficiencies in data collection and processing are likely to remain or increase. Online platforms however could also try to improve their cooperation with public authorities. Airbnb for example has created a city portal open to communities, which provide certain data and tools to their partners. 3.Why should the EU act? 3.1 Legal basis If the EU intervention takes the form of a legislative proposal, Article 114 TFEU would be the appropriate legal basis. Article 114 TFEU allows for the adoption of measures that are considered necessary for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States that have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. It is, therefore, the appropriate legal basis for a legislative intervention covering online service providers in the internal market and addressing divergences between Member States’ regulations and requirements, which affect the functioning of the internal market for online platforms. This initiative intends to ensure the proper functioning of the single market, in particular in relation to the provision of intermediating services. The majority of online platforms intermediating the offer of STR services operate across the EU and are confronted with several and diverging requirements and requests concerning information sharing on hosts and their activity and the display of information on STR services. Differences in national laws exist and are likely to increase, as national laws will continue to develop, given that some Member States have legislated or intend to legislate on the intermediation of STR services. Online platforms will also continue to be confronted with more and diverging data requests as a result of the growing need for transparency in the STR segment. Moreover, as a matter of Union law, information society services are in principle subject to the law of the Member State in which the service provider is established, and the adoption of national measures that restrict the cross-border provision of such services is subject to strict substantive and procedural conditions. In line with this objective, this intervention aims to establish a harmonised European framework for data generation and data sharing on STR services. The approximation of rules applicable to intermediary services is necessary to avoid the diversity of rules and requirements in the single market and facilitate data-sharing with public authorities and the cross-border provision of STR services. The data sharing framework proposed is expected to have a positive effect on market access, as it will provide the authorities with the data they need, supporting Member States in discharging their obligation to enact and maintain proportionate rules. This initiative will complement other horizontal acts/proposals (e.g. the DSA) which are also based on Article 114 TFEU. The use of Article 114 is also justified by the fact that the vast majority of data will be provided by online platforms operating cross-border (giving their share in the traffic). Covering, as a complement, online platforms with no or limited cross-border activity will contribute to giving a comprehensive set of data to public authorities and thus make the proposed EU framework fully efficient. If the intervention takes the form of recommendations, then Article 292 TFEU would be the appropriate legal basis. 3.2 Subsidiarity: necessity and added value of EU action According to the subsidiarity principle, the EU should only act where the objectives of the proposed action cannot be achieved sufficiently by Member States alone and can, therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the EU. Several Member States have established mechanisms that require hosts to register their activity; without prejudice to the compliance of such rules with EU law, in some cases Member States have introduced an obligation for online platforms to display these registration numbers on STR services intermediated by them. Several Member States are also imposing data reporting requirements on platforms. However, without the cooperation of online platforms in enabling that only listings with registration numbers are displayed, public authorities struggle with the enforcement of the obligation on hosts to register.

In addition, as explained in more details in chapter 2, divergent and burdensome frameworks concerning data sharing are affecting the ability of online platforms to comply with such requirements and therefore to operate cross-border. The fragmentation of data sharing requirements therefore currently creates barriers for online platforms to operate in the single market. In addition, even where data sharing rules are in place at local, regional or national level, online platforms do not always share the data with public authorities for legal, technical or cost-related reasons. For all of these reasons, the current interventions at national, regional and local level are often not effective, and authorities are complaining that they have difficulties in enforcing existing data generation and sharing requirements and therefore in obtaining data from platforms and hosts. This proposal primarily aims at streamlining data requests across the EU to facilitate compliance with such data requests for online STR platforms, hence reducing costs and removing barriers to operate in the single market for these platforms. An EU legal basis for data sharing by online STR platforms with public authorities, as well as an EU framework for such data sharing to take place, will increase legal certainty, ensure that the obligation to share data is compliant with EU law (GDPR, DSA…) and consistent with other reporting requirements (e.g. DAC7). It will also ensure that the data exchanged is standardised and interoperable. The EU framework will be applicable across the EU and will in particular simplify/streamline the landscape of reporting obligations on platforms. This harmonised framework will also prevent differentiated implementation of the obligation on platforms between Member States as the conditions for data sharing are the same for all (no selective avoidance). The combination of an EU obligation for authorities to issue registration numbers and for online platforms to enable hosts to display only listings with such registration numbers, where a registration system is in place, will ensure that such requirements on hosts are easily enforceable. It will also increase the traceability and facilitate data exchanges based on this registration number. The common EU framework will hence offer national and local authorities the level of transparency they need to enforce the rules and adopt informed policy responses in line with existing EU law. The principle of subsidiarity is also respected by giving local, regional or national authorities flexibility with regards to the implementation of registration schemes (whether to introduce them or not, and at which level), but also with regards to the information and evidence that each authority can request from hosts, to ensure that local circumstances and needs are respected and taken into account. The measures proposed also strike a balance between the interests of all stakeholders involved, by requiring concrete action from public authorities, hosts and online platforms, and offering benefits to these actors, ensuring the proportionality of the foreseen intervention. 4.Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1 Objectives tree 4.2 General objective The main policy objective of this initiative is to enhance transparency in the STR segment as part of efforts to promote a balanced tourism ecosystem. The initiative will improve and harmonise the framework for data generation and sharing on STR across the EU, remove related barriers to the provision of online services by online platforms and ensure that public authorities have sufficient and reliable data to develop sound policies in line with public policy objectives. This will ensure that online platforms do not face unjustified and disproportionate barriers to offer their services in the internal market. It will also help ensure that illegal STR services would no longer be offered, providing more certainty on enforcement of registration. 4.3 Specific objectives The specific objectives pursued with this initiative are to: 1.Reduce the burden on online platforms of STR data collection and sharing, and avoid fragmentation of these transparency requirements across the EU; 2.Ensure that public authorities have the tools they need to gather data for policy making and enforcement of STR rules. In order to reduce the burden on online platforms and avoid fragmentation of these transparency requirements across the EU, the initiative aims to put in place a common approach to data generation and data sharing, whilst clarifying the responsibilities of online platforms, hosts and public authorities. With respect to the second objective, the intervention aims at ensuring that authorities have access to the information that is needed for policy making and enforcement of STR rules (e.g. to ensure a sufficient supply of affordable long-term rental housing), in accordance with the applicable national rules. 5.What are the available policy options? 5.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? The baseline scenario entails a ‘no policy change’ approach. The EU would not specifically act to solve the transparency issues of the STR segment. It is expected that an increasing number of Member States and/or public authorities would continue to develop STR rules and mechanisms to obtain data from hosts and online platforms at national, regional and local level. The STR framework would therefore remain fragmented, uneven regulatory burdens would remain (and might even increase, as online platforms are confronted with increasing data sharing requests), and fragmented enforcement issues are likely to persist. Litigation is, in particular, likely to continue and increase, with STR rules being challenged in national courts and the CJEU. Public authorities and online platforms could also continue developing voluntary cooperation solutions, which take time to negotiate and only bring solutions for parties to the agreement. In their general contract conditions with hosts, certain online platforms provide that hosts are responsible for complying with local STR laws, or require hosts to acknowledge that they have complied with all the existing local rules before proceeding with the listing of the STR property. These conditions may also foresee the possibility for these platforms to take appropriate action in response to a host’s breach of applicable rules that they may become aware of, in particular following a notification of an illegal listing by public authorities. With no specific policy action, existing voluntary agreements for data sharing, as well as the recent DAC7 and DSA will bring some improvements to the data sharing and enforcement landscape in the EU without, however, comprehensively solving the problems identified (see above, section 2 ‘problem definition’). The DSA introduces due diligence requirements for online platforms to make sure that they behave more responsibly and transparently. Among these, a specific provision (applicable to online platforms that constitute marketplaces) will, in particular, require online marketplaces to ensure ‘compliance by design’ through an obligation to enable the display of registration numbers (where a registration procedure is in place), but only with respect to listings offered by hosts who qualify as ‘traders’, a term which does not necessarily cover all hosts active in the short-term rental sector. In addition, the DSA will give public authorities a tool to facilitate the enforcement of orders to provide specific information about individual users, and thus to investigate in more detail individual providers of STR services that authorities suspect act in a fraudulent manner. However, its provisions to do not extend to an obligation to collect and share data that applies to all hosts and their activities from platforms. These limitations may lead to enforcement gaps with respect to hosts’ compliance of STR rules, including compliance with registration obligations.

A common European data space for tourism is currently being developed. This data space aims to bring together various data sets on tourism for use by tourism businesses and public authorities alike (e.g., allowing them to monitor tourism trends). The creation of a tourism data space will not, however, solve the problems identified above (inter alia because it will not as such lead to generation of the data that is required by public authorities). Public authorities would still require specific STR type of data, notably specific identification and activity data regarding host offers with a certain frequency to design precise policy responses and to enforce STR rules. Finally, CJEU jurisprudence will provide binding interpretation, the Commission’s 2016 Communication on the collaborative economy and the 2018 policy principles and good practices will continue to serve as a guidance, notably to ensure that measures taken by public authorities in relation to STR are justified in light of the TFEU, the Services Directive and the e-Commerce Directive in particular. The Commission will continue monitor and might update its guidance documents. 5.2 Description of the policy options Three policy options have been identified. All aim to facilitate data generation and data sharing, by clarifying the respective duties of public authorities and online platforms and ensuring that effective tools are in place. Whilst the three options contain comparable measures, there differ considerably in terms of intensity of the intervention. The below intervention logic shows how the measures considered relate to the drivers, the problems and the specific objectives. Policy option 1 – Soft measures to promote data generation and data sharing Under this option, the EU would issue a Recommendation ·Encouraging public authorities to put in place registration schemes for hosts. Under such schemes, hosts would have to register with public authorities to offer STR services. As part of the registration process, they would be asked to provide certain data to the relevant public authorities about themselves and the property they put out for rent. The EU could encourage Member States to ensure that registration schemes are user-friendly and online, and lead to the automatic grant of a unique registration number per accommodation. It could also recommend to put in place a digital single entry point, to facilitate registration and data sharing (see further below, under Option 2). ·Requiring online platforms to design and organise their online interface in a way that enables all hosts to display the registration numbers on their websites for each listing.Online platforms would have to require a registration number for each accommodation from hosts who offer their accommodation on the online platform. This measure would ensure that hosts register their activities with public authorities (as without registration, they would not be able to offer STR services on online platforms), which would enable public authorities to better control compliance of STRs with local rules. ·Requiring online platforms to share pre-agreed activity data on each listing with public authorities. Information on such data sharing would be clearly communicated to the hosts at the time of the registration. This will enable public authorities to have a detailed knowledge of the activity of each STR accommodation. Activity data is relevant for areas where a limit on the number of nightly stays is in place, but also in order to design and implement proportionate rules and ensure compliance with them. Such Recommendation would be based on good practice examples, whilst taking into account applicable Union law. The Recommendation could be complemented by an EU Code of Conduct between public authorities and online platforms, and national legislation aiming to facilitate data sharing in practice in accordance with the GDPR. The specific STR Code of Conduct could build on and complement other voluntary agreements to data sharing on STRs, such as the Eurostat agreement or the future Code of Conduct for data sharing in tourism.It would in particular seek to: ·Specify which type of data online platforms could share with public authorities and with what frequency; ·Include agreements to use certain technical solutions to facilitate data sharing (e.g. the use of APIs or simpler alternatives such as ‘drag and drop’ for SMEs which might not have a sufficiently developed technological infrastructure); ·Include IT specifications to ensure, to a limited extent, interoperability of the data shared between public authorities and online platforms and security safeguards. The Code of Conduct could be initially developed between a limited group of online platforms and public authorities, giving other online platforms and public authorities the possibility to enter similar commitments voluntarily once it is adopted. The data collected voluntarily through the STR initiative could, in an aggregated format, feed into the Tourism Data Space. Policy option 2 – Legislative initiative containing a common approach to data generation and data sharing Under this option, a legislative initiative would be adopted, covering the following key measures: 1.Obligation for public authorities to maintain a registration system for hosts and their accommodations if they want to obtain STR data from online STR platforms (opt-in)

Public authorities (national, regional or local) who would like to obtain data on STRs for policy making and enforcement purposes (e.g. to ensure a sufficient supply of affordable long-term rental housing) from online STR platforms would be required, as a first step, to establish or maintain a mandatory registration scheme for hosts that announce their offers via online platforms. Hosts would be required to provide information relating to the host/owner (name, address, contact details) and the accommodation (type of accommodation, capacity, address, cadastral number). Public authorities would also be allowed to ask for additional information or evidence, such as health and safety certificates, fire safety certificates, insurance, landowner permission, etc…), on the condition that these additional requirements are necessary and proportionate to achieve a public interest objective (as required by the Services Directive and TFEU). The registration procedure would lead to the automatic grant of a unique registration number per accommodation. This would ensure full traceability of who offers what STRs on their territories. Verification of the information and supporting documents provided by the host, as well as any inspections, if necessary, would be carried out by public authorities ex post. The requirement to maintain a registration scheme would apply only to public authorities (at national, regional or local level) interested in obtaining data on STRs for policy making and enforcement purposes (e.g., to ensure a sufficient supply of affordable long-term housing) from online platforms. This may result in a situation wherein some local authorities maintain registration systems, and others not. Only the authorities that have put in place registration systems would be able to benefit from the data reporting obligations on platforms under this initiative (see below). This ‘opt in system’ aims to keep administrative burdens for authorities limited and to ensure that data is only exchanged where it effectively serves a public purpose. To reduce administrative burdens for online platforms and hosts, and in line with the Single Digital Gateway Regulation, Member States would be required to ensure that the information regarding the existence of (and links to) registration schemes at local, regional or national level is accessible via a national single digital entry point(the single digital entry point would also facilitate data sharing, see below). Member States should also ensure that hosts with multiple listings can re-use data they have already submitted during the first registration (notably data relating to the hosts itself), in accordance with the once-only principle. An EU Member State in the territory of which public authorities are not, at any level (national, regional or local), interested in obtaining data from online platforms would not be required to establish or maintain a registration system, nor a related single digital entry point (opt-in system, as explained above). Where registration schemes are already in place at national, regional or local level, Member States could maintain them, but would need to ensure that their existing registration schemes are in line with EU requirements. The obligation on a Member State to set up the single digital entry point is triggered by the wish of a local, regional or national authority to participate in the registration and data sharing systems as described under this policy option. 2.Obligation on online platforms to enable the hosts to display their registration numbers Online platforms would be obliged to create a field for registration numbers, which is already envisaged, in case of listings published by traders, under the “compliance by design” obligation under the DSA, where registration systems are in place. This obligation would therefore complement the DSA, covering all hosts, and not only hosts that would act as traders. In line with what the DSA currently foresees with respect to listings published by traders, online platforms would be required to make best efforts to assess, prior to the allowing of the offering of the service, that such registration information is provided. Similarly, online platforms would be required to make reasonable efforts to randomly check that the information provided by the host is reliable through the use of any freely accessible official online database or online interface made available by Member States (assuming such database would exist at national, regional or local level). Where an online platform would obtain sufficient indications or would have reasons to believe that the information provided by the host is inaccurate, incomplete or not up to date, this would, pursuant to the DSA, trigger an obligation for online platforms to suspend the provision of their services to those hosts until they provided all the required information. The obligation for platforms to enable all hosts to display their registration numbers would ensure that hosts effectively register their activities, which facilitates compliance by local authorities. 3.Obligation on online platforms to share activity data Online platforms would be required to report a closed list of specific data on the activity of hosts to public authorities, notably data on the number of nights an accommodation is rented out, and the number of guests to which it rented out. They would be required to share data only with public authorities that have put in place a registration scheme, and the reporting would be linked to the unique registration number issued for each rental unit for each host. This will allow public authorities to combine the activity data shared by the online platforms (i.e., registration number, number of night and number of guests) with the data provided by hosts through the registration scheme (i.e., identification of the host and the property), to obtain the complete information on STR services provided by each host. Complete information should enable authorities to order (based on applicable national or EU law) the online platforms to remove, under the rules of the DSA and in full compliance thereof, any specific illegal listing that these authorities have identified (e.g. listing with invalid registration number, or breach of any other requirement in place). The DSA rules will apply with respect to orders for removal of specific illegal listings, orders for obtaining specific information about individual users, insofar as those orders fulfil the conditions of the DSA. The limitations of liability of online platforms for the illegal content they store at the request of their recipients will be governed by the DSA. Platforms would have to share data via an API (or similar tool) linked to a single digital interface made available at the national level, and linked to the single digital entry point referred to above. This interface would in practice serve as a data hub, collecting all relevant data from all relevant online platforms, and sending on these data to relevant public authorities within the national territory (with each public authority receiving data concerning its respective jurisdiction only). National authorities would therefore need to develop an IT infrastructure (or adapt any existing one already in place) to allow online platforms to share data through it. Online platforms would be requested to report activity data at least on a weekly basis. They are expected to share data through automated means – e.g. with API – through the single digital entry point. More lenient reporting obligations would apply to small and micro online platforms (within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC), unless these online platforms reach a certain threshold of active users (hosts) in the EU. Small and micro online platforms that do not reach such threshold are not expected to share data through automated means and can report data to public authorities every three months. This solution should ensure that authorities get data from all platforms, whilst minimising burdens on the smallest platforms with a limited impact on the market. Member States would be responsible for the implementation of the measures foreseen under this option, and would also have to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place to comply with the GDPR. The responsibility for the enforcement of these measures would lie in principle with the Member States and consistently with the DSA framework. The data collected by public authorities through the STR initiative could also, in an aggregated format, feed into the Tourism Data Space. Policy option 3 – Legislative initiative containing a common approach to data generation and data sharing, with mandatory national registration schemes for all hosts A legislative initiative would be adopted, covering the three key measures set out above, including more lenient obligations for small and micro online platforms, but with the following difference: all Member States would maintain a single registration system at national level for all hosts offering STR listings via online platforms.

This option would require all Member States to adapt their current practices in terms of registration schemes. Member States where registration schemes currently do not exist, would have to introduce one, and where registration schemes have been created at local or regional level, they would need to be centralised at the national level. Whilst this system can be more burdensome for Member States on the short-term, it would increase efficiency for online platforms, hosts and public authorities on the long-term, and is likely to be more future proof (as, with the rise of STRs all across the EU, it is likely that overtime all Member States would want to have data on STRs). Online platforms, in particular, will benefit in terms of efficiency by setting up a single IT system applicable across all EU at the same time. As under option 2, Member States would be responsible for the implementation of the measures foreseen under this option, and would also have to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place to comply with the GDPR. The responsibility for the enforcement of these measures would lie in principle with the Member States and consistently with the DSA framework. The data collected by public authorities through the STR initiative could also, in an aggregated format, feed into the Tourism Data Space. 5.3Options discarded at an early stage Five measures have been discarded upfront, for the reasons set out below. 1.Mandatory EU registration scheme The EU would set up a unique registration system for all hosts across the EU. All hosts would receive a unique registration number. The EU would collect data from online platforms, linked to the registration number, through a single digital entry point set up at EU level. Local and national public authorities would be able to extract the necessary data from this database (manually or with automated tools such as APIs) as well as EU institutions and bodies (aggregated data). While bringing some simplification and clarity to hosts and online platforms in the EU with regards to their obligations to register and share data, this option does not sufficiently take into account the principle of subsidiarity. 2.A legislative approach providing for a legal basis for national tax authorities sharing data they obtain under DAC7 with local authorities (G2G dimension) The DAC7 will apply as from 1 January 2023. It creates an obligation for online platforms to report annually some data on STR activity (including the income earned) and for the Member State where reporting takes place, to exchange this information automatically with the competent tax authorities of the other relevant Member State(s). Online platforms must report, inter alia, the following data to the relevant Member State: details of the platform; identification data on the host and the accommodation; the revenue received during each quarter and the number of relevant activities provided with respect to each property listing; any fees, commissions or taxes withheld or charged by the platform during each quarter; where available, the number of days each property listing was rented and the type of each property listing. Under this measure, a legal basis would be introduced at the European level to allow the transfer of this data from the competent tax authorities of Member States to their public authorities enforcing STR rules (regional or local authorities). However, this option was discarded as the frequency of data sharing (annually) and timing (year+1) would prevent public authorities from obtaining up-to-date information on hosts that would allow them to undertake effective and timely law-enforcement action. The type of data collected is also incomplete, as it does not cover for instance the number of guests. 3.A legislative approach imposing obligations on online platforms only; no obligations on Member States This option would foresee the obligations on online platforms to share data as presented under options 2 and 3, without however considering the obligation to set up a registration scheme or to issue a registration number. While with this option, public authorities could get some data on STRs from online platforms directly, it would not allow public authorities to cross-check the data received from online platforms with data received directly from hosts. This could lead to poor data quality and traceability. The burden on the online platforms would also be increased, as in the absence of registration schemes and registration numbers, online platforms might have to share also identification data. As this option would put all the burdens on online platforms, without creating any efficiency gains for them (i.e. harmonised data set to be shared with public authorities, automated data sharing mechanisms, information available on a single digital entry point), it has been discarded upfront. 4.Exemption for certain online platforms from data-sharing obligations The option of a full exemption for certain small and micro online platforms from reporting obligations, based on the volume of STR activity intermediated (number of active hosts) was assessed but also discarded at an early stage. For the purpose of this assessment, it has been identified that 680 companies could fall into the reporting exemption. There would be a direct positive effect for online platforms which would be able to save “costs” deriving from the data sharing obligations: the implementation of this variant will translate into around EUR 1.6 million savings per year for all EU companies falling into this reporting derogation. However, other considerations (below) need to be taken into account. Whilst such exemption might entail benefits for smaller online platforms (because they would be able to save costs related to data sharing), excluding certain online platforms from the scope of the initiative could create a loophole in the stream of information public authorities will be able to receive. This will lower the completeness and reliability of information at the disposal of public authorities to tackle positive and negative externalities linked with STR activity. Consequently, the enforceability of STR rules in place will be jeopardised. In addition, an exemption from reporting requirements could incentivise circumvention of the rules, by directing traffic towards online platforms that would be exempted from the reporting obligations. Hosts who do not want to see their activities reported partially or fully could easily resort to these platforms. This would clearly defeat the objective of the reporting requirements by hampering the ability of public authorities to monitor compliance and enforce the rules. At the same time any initial benefit for these smaller online platforms will not represent a consistent incentive prolonged in time (because as soon as these smaller online platforms will reach the minimum volume of transactions they would need to report data). It should be noted that also the DAC 7 does not entail an exemption from data sharing for smaller platforms. 5.Proportionality assessment of market access conditions for hosts Under this option, the EU would have developed a dedicated proportionality assessment to ensure that any additional market access requirements, going beyond registration and reporting requirements (for instance quantitative restrictions such as night caps, or zoning restrictions), do not go beyond what is strictly justified and proportionate. This assessment would include both procedural and substantive requirements that public authorities must respect when introducing market access restrictions on hosts. Public authorities would be required to evaluate market access requirements to demonstrate they are necessary and proportionate to meet a specific public interest objective. They would also have to differentiate between types of hosts and types of STR offers (e.g., differentiate between ‘peers’ and professional hosts). A list of un-recommended market access requirements, that are not considered justified and proportionate, such as the imposition of undifferentiated bans on STRs, would be imposed. However, this option was discarded for a number of reasons. Stakeholders, and in particular public authorities, did not express support for such intervention. The Cali apartments judgment already clarified the requirements under the Services Directive, and notably the requirement to conduct a proportionality test based on objective facts, already apply. 6.What are the impacts of the policy options? Whenever possible, economic, social and environmental impacts were assessed quantitatively. Data needed for the analysis has been obtained from multiple sources and triangulation between sources was used to confirm the cost estimation. For indirect impacts on STR players, a more qualitative analysis has been conducted in order not to rely on weak estimations, which could be misleading.

Direct impacts of the initiative are assessed on three categories of stakeholders. Online platforms and public authorities are directly targeted by the initiative (as a result of new recommendations/obligations for them). Hosts are directly affected but in different degrees depending on the policy option analysed. We refer to ‘other players’ as the set of economic agents operating in the tourism ecosystem impacted by the STR segment; these are impacted mildly and indirectly. For public authorities, the maximum cost in the estimated range was considered. It is assumed that Member States shall assess what existing IT infrastructure they can adapt to comply with recommendations or provisions set up by the initiative, being able to lower costs by re-using existing solutions. With regards to social and environmental impacts, quantification of impacts were requested to public authorities, but the feedback provided did not allow to quantify substantially these possible impacts of the measures. These are therefore described in a more qualitative manner. An implementation (transition) period of two years will provide public authorities and online platforms sufficient time to adapt and implement the new requirements. 6.1Policy option 1 - Soft measures to promote data generation & data sharing Economic impacts: In light of the voluntary nature of this option and the absence of information on whether Member States shall implement all or only some of the recommendations, the estimation of the economic impacts at EU level in quantitative terms depends on how many Member States are likely to implement them, the exact nature of commitments made under a Code of Conduct and the amount of participants, as well as the diversity of existing registration schemes. Some elements to assess qualitatively the impact on the different players are also presented below, in order to allow for a comparison between the options both quantitatively and quantitatively. Impacts on online platforms: 1.Benefits The cost for an online platform to process a single request for data submitted by a public authority amounts to EUR 13 549. As explained in chapter 2, the dedicated survey for online platforms has shown an exponential growth in data requests in the past years. Online platforms reported to have received more than 1700 requests for data sharing in 2020 and 800 in 2021 (the number lowered due to the impact that the COVID pandemic had on tourism flows and therefore on the need of local public authorities to check STR activity). Taking these numbers of data requests as a baseline, we can estimate a cumulative administrative cost for online platforms in the next 5 years between EUR 54 million (based on 800 requests per year) and EUR 115 million (based on 1700 requests per year) at least.This estimate is based on a conservative assumption of only 60% of the biggest platforms (18) are confronted with data requests so any requests directed to smaller platforms are not included in these estimates (see table 7 annex 4). At the same time is assumed that each online platform will receive requests only from 40% of the total 150 local public authorities identified A leaner and more predictable way to share data will reduce the time and full time equivalents (FTEs) needed to deal with each data request. This option foresees soft tools to streamline the way data is generated and shared by online platforms. If the recommendations are put in place consistently by public authorities and online platforms, uncoordinated requests for data would be replaced by a more streamlined approach based on pre-defined data sets and data sharing mechanisms. This will benefit all platforms, especially SMEs. The benefits for online platforms will however strongly vary depending on the exact principles agreed in the Code of Conduct and the number of public authorities voluntarily joining the Code of Conduct and implement the recommendations. It is therefore not possible to quantify the benefits resulting from a reduction in the number of uncoordinated requests. In addition, it should be noted that some public authorities will continue to request data via means other than those set forth in the recommendation and/or Code of Conduct. This means that online platforms could continue to be exposed to uncoordinated requests by public authorities. 2.Costs Online platforms would bear costs to adapt their IT infrastructure to ensure automated sharing of data with public authorities. The one-off costs per platform that would decide to share data via an API could be estimated at EUR 30 000 with yearly maintenance costs of around EUR 36 000. However, as these costs would depend on the characteristics of the available technical solutions (automated and less-automated ones) to facilitate data sharing and would only apply to online platforms who decide to voluntary comply with the framework, it is not possible to properly model the costs estimations. In Member States where registration schemes are put in place and registration numbers are issued, online platforms may also be required to display such registration numbers. For online platforms to enable the display of registration numbers, minor technical adjustments would be needed, the cost of which is expected to negligible. Impact on public authorities: 1.Benefits Positive impacts would be only ensured where and to the extent public authorities and online platforms implement the soft tool set forth under this option. Benefits for public authorities would in that case include a reduction of costs in obtaining the data they need. Authorities would receive better quality and more complete data sets, in a much more streamlined and cost-effective manner, with less litigation. The benefits are difficult to quantify under this option, as they would depend on the willingness of online platforms to comply with the soft tools. Better quality data will also reduce public authorities’ costs in monitoring and securing compliance with local rules, as authorities would be able to identify and act against illegal listings in a more effective manner. 2.Costs Authorities deciding to implement the soft tools would face a set of administrative costs, related to the creation or adjustment of registration schemes, and the creation of an IT infrastructure facilitating data sharing with online platforms.

The one-off cost per national authority for setting up a new IT infrastructure is estimated to be around EUR 137 000 but assuming that every national authority will exploit (at least partially) existing IT infrastructure, 30% of cost savings could be made. Yearly costs for hosting and maintenance have been identified respectively to around EUR 60 000 and EUR 36 000, for a total of roughly EUR 96 000. Assuming that 16 Member States will implement the recommendations under option 1, total costs for national authorities under this option will amount to around EUR 1.55 million for setting up the system and EUR 1.55 million for each subsequent year for hosting and maintenance. In addition, regional or local authorities may also bear costs related to the connection of their systems with the IT infrastructure created by national authorities, which are estimated at EUR 30 000 with yearly maintenance costs at EUR 36 000. In the conservative assumption that around 100 cities/areas in the 16 Member States mentioned above will want to implement the provisions and will adapt their existing systems gaining additional 80% savings in the above mentioned cost to connect their systems, this could entail a cumulated adjustment cost of EUR 600 000 and a recursive yearly maintenance cost of about EUR 720 000. There may also be indirect costs associated with upskilling public authorities in relation to data analysis and business intelligence, depending on the existing level of expertise. It is, however, difficult to quantify such costs as it is impossible to know in advance which public authorities will need to develop from ex-novo or are already in possession of such skills. Finally, it should be noted that under option 1, Member States would still have to adopt national legislation facilitating data sharing, to be compliant with the GDPR, since there would be no formal legal basis created under EU law. This would reduce the (cost) effectiveness of this option. Impacts on hosts: 1.Benefits According to the study made by Oxford Research, hosts suffer from burdensome registration requirement and have, on average, to wait 15 days before their registration is complete (e.g., because of ex ante checks carried out by public authorities). Where the soft tools are implemented, new hosts entering the market in the assumed 16 Member States implementing the recommendations under this option, would benefit from more streamlined registration procedures and from a significantly reduced waiting time, translating into a total saving of about EUR 438 million in the first 5 years after implementation (based on baseline number of 2019 and growth rate estimations). This estimation represents the monetisation of the time hosts are expected to dedicate to this activity and it is based on the average hourly wage and the assumption that the waiting time for registration will be reduced from 15 days to between 1.4 and 1.7 day, which is in line with time currently needed to complete a registration procedure in Portugal and Greece. These two have been identified as benchmark because they are in line with the proposed soft tools. Based on the assumption that 87% of the hosts are peers and 13% professional hosts, the cumulative cost savings for citizens over five years are estimated at around EUR 381 million and for professional hosts at around EUR 57 million. 2.Costs Hosts in the 100 cities/areas in the 16 Member States mentioned above will possibly be requested by competent local authorities to adapt their registration information. Using the assumption that data already used in the active systems will be re-used, it is possible to assume that any adaptation will not cost more than ~30% of a new registration for each host (the cost associated with a new registration under the characteristics required in this initiative is at around EUR 320). A rough estimation brings a total one-off administrative cost for hosts of around EUR 15.8 million. Based on the assumption that 87% of the hosts are peers and 13% professional hosts, the one off administrative costs for citizens are estimated at around EUR 13.7 million and for professional hosts at around EUR 2.1 million. Impacts on Tourism Ecosystem and other accommodation service providers: If the soft tools referred to above are implemented, the tourism sector as a whole is likely to benefit, in an indirect manner. Better data about STR would give authorities the tools to assess and address any problems related to unfair competition between STR providers and providers of other accommodation services, such as hotels. This is likely to have a positive economic impact on the latter. Further, public authorities might decide to make data collected on STRs available on an aggregate basis to the various stakeholders active in the tourism sector. This is the aim of the envisaged tourism data space. Better quality data on STRs would allow a variety of actors in the tourism sector (e.g., restaurants, tourist guides, cleaning services, management companies – often operating cross-border) to monitor and anticipate trends, and to adjust their service offers to these trends. Social impacts: The potential impacts are presented below in a qualitative manner, as the social impact of the measures under this option will depend on the implementation of the measures by public authorities and online platforms, and also on what public authorities will do exactly with the better quality data they will receive. Expected impacts include: ·Increased trust of consumers/guests In the areas where the recommendations foreseen in option 1 will be implemented, guests’ trust is expected to increase thanks to the use of the registration number. In addition, public authorities would be able to better monitor and enforce health and safety requirements, thanks to the data received from hosts and online platforms. ·Less illegal listings Since traceability of hosts and their activity, including with the obligation to enable all hosts to display the registration numbers, will increase substantially the ability of public authorities to enforce local rules on STR activity, it is expected that fewer unlawful STR accommodations will be offered. This would benefit the final consumers – i.e. the guests – and/or the local communities, as authorities would be better able to ensure the quality of offer to tourists and the quality of life of residents. The case of French cities: In December 2021, Airbnb delisted non-registered offers in 10 touristic French cities. It is estimated that this led to a decrease of the offer ranging from 10 to 40% depending on the city. This delisting followed the decision of the Paris Tribunal to impose a 8.4 million fine to Airbnb for publishing non-registered listings. In Paris, it is claimed that around 10 000 ads were suspended for non-registration related reasons. The case of Barcelona: Using data provided by a cooperation agreement with one important STR online platform, as well as other complementary sources, Barcelona has been able to reduce significantly the number of illegal listings since it started to fight it in 2018. ·Better management of tourism flows and increased ability of public authorities to assess and mitigate negative externalities of STRs

Thanks to better data-sharing between online platforms and public authorities, the latter would have better information and tools to predict and manage touristic flows. Completeness, reliability and extensiveness of information on the STR segment, if properly used, will help public authorities in their public policies duties. They will be able to design evidence based policies, producing better targeted policies to address specific externalities of the STR activity – positive or negative – to the benefit of local communities. This could, for instance, have a positive impact on the availability of affordable housing in high pressure areas. In these areas, public authorities would be able to better regulate STRs to ensure a balance between the STR offer and the availability of affordable housing. Better data could also positively affect the capacity of public authorities to deal with health and safety, as well as possible security issues related to STRs. Benefits of a better data sharing framework for tourism hot spots detection and management of the coexistence between tourists and residents - The case of Barcelona Barcelona has indicated that more efficient data sharing with online platforms leads to a better detection of areas with great tourist demand, the so-called “Great Affluence Areas” (GAA) of Barcelona city. According to the city of Barcelona, identifying GAAs is necessary to better define specific tourism policies, to mitigate the potential negative effects of tourism on public spaces and neighbourhoods. In particular, the City of Barcelona has created a team of Civic officers to improve the coexistence between visitors and residents. They provide advice about civic rules and behaviours and help visitors enjoy responsibly of the sites. Knowing the flows of tourists allows the City to better manage its Civic officers team. Data show a clear decreasing trend of reports by citizens of incidents due to touristic activity, in particular related to STR (specific entry), since the creation of the Civic officers team. Better management of STRs to ensure availability of affordable housing -The case of Amsterdam Several studies have looked into the impact of the growth of STRs on the availability of affordable housing. A study has specifically looked into statistical correlations between the rise of STR listings in Amsterdam and the housing prices in the city. While the research highlights the complexity in finding any correlation in this regard, the results however suggest that in particular in the high-density city centre, the growth of STRs can lead to higher housing market prices. Better data on STRs would allow public authorities to better manage STRs in given areas, which could have a positive impact on the availability of affordable long-term housing. ·Impacts on fundamental rights The recommended provisions under policy option 1 are expected to affect the fundamental right of the protection of personal data, since it would increase data collection and sharing. However, such processing would be necessary and proportionate to achieve the objectives as described above. With respect to the impact on the fundamental right of protection of personal data, the Code of Conduct on data–sharing between online platforms and public authorities could specify the application of the GDPR to the processing of STR data and provide for data protection safeguards to mitigate the effects of data sharing by setting standards on data, their format and the tools needed to perform such operation which are in line with the principles of GDPR (data minimisation and purpose limitation, integrity and confidentiality, etc.). If implemented by players, the agreement will streamline the operations, reducing the heterogeneity of formats data are shared at the moment. The expected result is the development of a data-sharing process that better guarantees the privacy and data protection of individuals, i.e. the hosts. If widely (voluntarily) adopted, the Code of Conduct should assist with the compliance with GDPR rules. In order to ensure the lawfulness of the processing of those data, a national legislative act to establish the legal basis for the processing would still be required. Environmental impacts: The potential impacts are presented below in a qualitative manner as the actual quantitative impacts of the measures under this option will (i) depend on the level of implementation of the measures by public authorities and online platforms, and (ii) on what public authorities would decide to do with the data they receive. Nevertheless, it is possible to forecast certain types of indirect positive impacts as presented below, if public authorities get more data, and if the data collected is used by public authorities to develop green policies: ·Increased ability of public authorities to assess and mitigate the ecological footprint of STR activity More data on tourism flows via STRs could give public authorities the possibility to size energy consumption of such accommodation and their contribution to the ecological footprint. Public authorities would also possibly be able to better assess the needs for waste management and coordinate resources at local level accordingly, reducing the urban impact of STR activity. The impact of better STR data on green policies and mobility – The case of Barcelona The city of Barcelona has been able to assess the environmental externalities of tourism, including STR. -STR is the fourth most water-consuming per person, and it is 1.9 times the normal water consumption of Barcelona residents -Energy consumption of a STR guest is 1.3 times the average energy consumption of a Barcelona residents (although less than other touristic options) -STR is the second main waste generator from tourist accommodation and responsible for 9.2% of the total waste generated in the city. The city also assessed that better data on STRs could allow to better forecast the number of overnight stays, the volume of daily travel within the city and hence allow to better design urban policies to plan and manage tourist mobility. ·Impact on rural areas Better data should allow public authorities to attract STRs in rural areas where STRs have a positive overall impact, for example where STRs can allow to invest in the renovation of houses, including for the greening of buildings. It should be noted that all positive impacts mentioned before would materialise only if and to the extent the soft tools under this option are complied with. Stakeholders’ views on the policy option 1: All stakeholders groups supported in some manner the measures presented under this option during the stakeholder and the public consultations. However, public authorities and online platforms – as well as local associations - notably have stressed the limits of soft approaches in this regard. In particular, they stress that soft approaches have already been put in place since the Communication of 2016 and the policy principles of 2018, but that these have not led to major improvements in terms of transparency in the STR sector. Barcelona explained that, while the collaboration they have put in place with online platforms to obtain periodic data on STRs and flag illegal listings brought some improvements in policy making and enforcement, they still observe major quality problems with regards to the data received, which has forced the authorities to continue to collect data through web scraping. This example therefore shows the limits of voluntary cooperation. Stakeholders, including local associations, therefore, express a preference for a more structured framework for data sharing, taking the view that only a binding common EU framework, by preference of a legislative nature, could achieve it. This is confirmed in the Memorandum of the Urban Agenda Culture and Cultural Heritage 2021 (which concludes that without mandatory collaboration of online platforms, the regulatory powers of public authorities remains ineffective). 6.2Policy option 2 - Legislative initiative containing a common approach to data generation and data sharing Economic impacts: The main difference with respect to option 1 is that option 2 makes the system compulsory through legislation where there is a need for STR data. Impacts are similar in nature, but different in probability of realisation and magnitude. While in option 1, the implementation of the framework (and therefore the costs) is voluntary, and solely rely on the good will of public authorities and online platforms, in option 2, the implementation of the framework is mandatory for all public authorities (local or national) who would like to collect data on STRs, and for all online platforms. Repetitions of the descriptive parts of the analysis are omitted and analysis below will rather focus on the differences.

Impacts on online platforms: Under option 2, all online platforms in the EU would have to put in place the data sharing framework. This will result in much bigger (and much more certain) benefits for online platforms, whilst also increasing compliance costs. 1.Benefits The main benefit for online platforms results from the replacement of uncoordinated data requests by more streamlined and proportionate requests (in particular with regards to the type of data to be shared, the frequency and the technical means), which can be translated into cost savings on the long term. Contrary to option 1, online platforms will have the same data sharing obligations and obligations to allow the display of registration numbers (when data are requested) within the entire single market. Under this option, the data set that online platforms have to share with selected public authorities (those that have put in place the data framework) will be pre-defined and closed. This will therefore create economic benefits for online platforms, and in particular for smaller platforms, as they will always have to share the same data set with the same frequency with selected public authorities. A streamlined data-sharing framework, which will be automated, will help concretely online platforms to better plan and allocate resources due to the predictability of the data requests as well as the predictability of the data to be shared, the tools to be used and the data standards to be respected. This will imply certainty for online platforms on the type and timing of data-requests coming from public authorities since they will only receive data requests under the framework set up by the initiative, reducing the burdensomeness of requests. Savings for online platforms are expected to be substantial. A streamlined data-sharing framework will enable online platforms to eliminate the costs for legal assessment and put in place an automated way to process incoming data requests from public authorities, thus making the cost to process a single request very limited and negligible (therefore reducing the cost to process single requests from EUR 13 549 to EUR 0). On this basis, it is estimated that savings for online platforms over a period of 5 years will amount to between EUR 54 million (based on 800 requests per year) and EUR 115 million (based on 1700 requests per year) and net savings to around EUR 35.8 million and EUR 96.8 million (baseline costs related to data requests from public authorities minus one-off costs for online platforms of around EUR 8.2 million as presented below and cumulative maintenance costs of EUR 10 million. Small and micro-enterprise online platforms with average monthly active hosts equal or lower to 1 000 will benefit greatly from the possibility to use adapted reporting obligations (every three months, and manually, rather than weekly and automated for bigger online platforms). Moreover, the targeted survey for online platforms has shown that online platforms that would qualify for more lenient reporting obligations are already recipients of requests for data submitted by public authorities and this is likely to continue considering that there are national frameworks (e.g. France) that do not foresee any exemption to the collection of STR data from online platforms, including small and micro-enterprises. The data available doesn’t enable to quantify the exact number of data requests received by small and micro-platforms and the related cost savings for small and micro-platforms. However, a single data request might currently cost EUR 13 549 to process, which is significantly higher than the estimated cost of the adapted reporting obligations (around EUR 600 for each reporting activity per small or micro-platform or EUR 2400 per year). Additional legal certainty will be given to online platforms by the legal basis that provisions in this policy option will provide – differently from option 1. Due to the diversity of requests, online platforms often fear that data requests from public authorities could breach privacy laws and other legal instruments at the level of the Member States’ domestic law or at the level of Union law (e.g. GDPR). Without a specific basis in Union law, online platforms are therefore obliged to analyse every single data request in order to make sure that these requests do not breach any existing legal instrument, incurring in extra costs and delaying the provision of data to public authorities. The new ad hoc legal basis set by this policy option will increase legal certainty for all online platforms and therefore reduce costs for legal assessment and processing time linked to data requests, while still complying with applicable Union legislation in the field of data protection, such as the GDPR. 2.Costs Under this option, online platform will mainly incur administrative costs linked with the adaptation of their IT infrastructure and the connection to the single digital entry point. Larger companies will face the one-off cost of adapting their IT infrastructure to share data by automated means (APIs) through each single digital entry point of Member States in which they operate and in which local, regional or national authorities requ