Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

284 COLLECTIVE COMMENTARY ABOUT THE NEW PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE them as a penalty, published a red mark under all of them in order to inform travellers of the ongoing attempts at manipulation. However, what I would like to point out (recalling this judicial ruling) is (beyond the peculiarity of the case) the close connection between unfair commercial practices and the expectation of a satisfying protection system, not only for competitive game effectiveness (within the meaning outlined above) but also for consumers. There is no doubt that online reviews played a main role in tourism and in consumer purchase decisions. As proof of this, it is not surprising that in 2017 the “World Committee on Tourism Ethics” outlined the need of publishing guidelines about Ethical Tourism in an attempt to guide the parties involved towards a truthful use of the scores and reviews on digital platforms. Furthermore, the creation of a false digital identity, in addition to affecting subject identification in the digital community and sometimes in the real world, often jeopardizes existential legal situations worth protecting. Especially in social networks, which amplify the phenomenon. From this perspective, digital identity does not stop being an existential situation, despite having a predominant economic significance. In fact, through its identification takes place a social projection of the person. Another particular case of unfair commercial practice is the one the Antitrust Authority raised against a railway company operating in the Lazio region, which concluded with a fine of 3,000,000 and 600,000 Euros for unfair commercial behaviour. In fact, from 2010 to 2016 the company neither complied with many timetables for the routes it operated nor did it properly advertise delays and inefficiencies, an obligation of someone offering a product or service, to divulge any relevant information, allowing consumers to make a conscious choice. However, this sanction was then confirmed by the Administrative Court of Lazio (Section I) which, through ruling num. 1081 of January 30, 2018, rejected all the transportation company pleas, considering it punishable in light of the Competition and Market Guarantor determinations. The decision was made to protect consumers/users from a constant lack of stations and the widespread fulfilment of online time, as well as the usual cancellation of scheduled trips and the lack of preventive availability of information about the inability to comply with it. In other words, breaching the regulation referred to in Article 20, Paragraph 2, 21 and 22 of the Consumer Code. In addition, the Administrative Court, being constantly and frequently in line with the law, also specified that the frequent lack of trips, as well as the lack of a prompt warning to users are liable to bring about the intervention of the Competition and Market Authority. Its goal is to protect consumers/users, by means of Article 22 of the Consumer