A Brazilian appellate court has ruled that Booking.com cannot be held liable for damages suffered by guests during a fire at a guesthouse, even when the reservation was made through the platform. The 3rd Panel of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça reached the decision unanimously on September 1st.
The São Paulo Ruling That Led to the Appeal
The case originated in São Paulo’s court system, where the platform was found jointly responsible with the guesthouse for both material damages and moral damages resulting from the incident. It challenged that decision, arguing it should bear no liability for events occurring during guests’ stays at properties listed on its service.
According to the ruling, the fire broke out in one of the guesthouse’s rooms while guests were staying there. The damage was directly tied to the establishment’s operations rather than anything related to how the reservation was made.
Platform Intermediation vs. Hospitality Services
Justice Villas Bôas Cueva, who served as rapporteur, drew a clear distinction between Booking.com’s role as an intermediary and the actual hospitality services provided by the guesthouse. He stated that liability must be assessed based on the type of service actually rendered.
Related: UN warns 1.5C temp rise must be limited
The court found that the harmful event occurred during the hospitality phase of the stay. The guesthouse’s failure, if any, should be attributed to the establishment itself, “whose operations are autonomous and distinct from the intermediation performed by the digital platform.”
The justices also noted that the original lawsuit did not identify any error in the service provided by the platform itself.
Legal Reasoning Behind the Decision
The ruling emphasized that objective liability for service providers requires proof of a defect and a causal connection to the harm, and is not automatic simply because a company participates in a supply chain. The court stated that solidarity among suppliers does not eliminate the requirement that a harmful event be traced to a defect in the specific service each party actually provides.
“Compartmentalization of liability is permitted when the parties’ operations are independent and clearly defined,” the ruling noted.
Related: Exploring the Impact of pafikotcurup.org
Marcelo Teske, a partner at Bornhausen & Zimmer Advogados who represented Booking in lower courts, described the outcome as clarifying the boundaries of digital platform responsibility. “This is an emblematic case where our firm achieved a significant victory by establishing the distinction between the role of digital platforms that intermediate hotel bookings—such as Booking and Airbnb—and the final hospitality service itself,” he said.
Teske emphasized that the platform completes its function when a reservation is finalized and the hospitality contract begins. “The platform cannot be held responsible for what occurs during the stay, because that is not its service or its obligation to manage,” he added.
Implications for Digital Platforms
Luiz Fernando Bandeira de Mello, a partner specializing in administrative and regulatory law at Serur who argued the case before the STJ, explained that Booking’s responsibility is limited to ensuring accuracy between listings and actual properties. “The platform only provides intermediation services. It is responsible for things like compatibility between the room and its advertisement, availability, and pricing—but not for the actual delivery of the hospitality service, which remains the responsibility of the partner establishment,” he said.
The case was heard under case number REsp 2260367.
