Tourism Law in Europe

12 only to experience that the airline went bankrupt during the consumer’s stay in France. GoLeif.dk’s general terms and conditions contained a disclaimer stating that the platform provider only acts as an intermediary between the consumer and the airline carriers and therefore is not the consumer’s contracting party. Hence, the judgment raises questions about whether it is possible to ascertain which cumulative requirements a platform intermediary (the retailer) must meet to have a contractually valid intermediary disclaimer so that possible claims must be addressed to the performance debtor in accordance with the general rule regarding the liability of intermediaries towards third parties. In its decision, the Eastern Regional Court initially concluded that there is no doubt that the underlying agreement between the subsequently bankrupt airline and GoLeif.dk (the internal relationship) meant that GoLeif.dk only acted as a retailer between the airline as the seller and the consumer as the buyer. However, the appellant (the consumer) claimed that he had the impression that the contract was entered into with GoLeif.dk via the platform website, thereby contending that GoLeif.dk—along with the airline—must be regarded as the consumer’s direct contracting party (the external relationship). The consumer stressed that his sole contact had been with GoLeif.dk, which also received the payment, and to whom he electronically submitted a request for the tickets. One of the key premises in the judgment is that although it seems clear that retailers (travel agents) generally do not act in their own name when selling airline tickets but act only as an intermediary for the airline carriers, this relationship cannot be regarded as widely known by the consumers. Having made a general assessment of the website of GoLeif.dk, the Eastern Regional Court found that the consumer could assume they were dealing directly with GoLeif.dk. This was affirmed, despite the fact that the website makes it possible to choose between flights from multiple airlines. Based on this premise, we can conclude that the level of knowledge expected of a consumer is different and lower compared with what is expected when a contracting party acts as a professional. In this regard, the consumer bears no professional risk. The court emphasised the general impression of the website and the fact that the consumer