When a tenant illegally sub-lets their accommodation via Airbnb, who bears the legal consequences? The Court of Cassation's ruling, made in two decisions of 7 January 2026 (nos 23-22.723 and 24-13.163), ends a long-standing uncertainty and now clearly establishes the digital platform's liability.
The facts leading to these decisions have become sadly commonplace: a tenant, without the landlord's permission, rents out their property on a short-term basis via the Airbnb platform, thereby collecting rent to the detriment of the owner and, often, in contempt of the co-ownership rules. The question submitted to the High Court concerned the legal classification of Airbnb's role and, consequently, the liability regime applicable to it.
Legally, the debate centred on a fundamental distinction within internet platform law: that between a host – a mere technical service provider protected by the mitigated liability regime of the French Digital Economy Confidence Act (LCEN) – and a publisher, whose active role in content dissemination incurs full legal responsibility. The Court of Cassation has ruled: Airbnb Ireland cannot claim the status of a passive host. Indeed, the company plays a structuring role in the organisation of rentals – setting standards, moderating listings, providing guarantees to travellers, and establishing pricing policies – which characterises an active role exceeding mere technical connection. Classified as a publisher, the platform can therefore be held jointly liable with the culpable tenant, particularly for returning profits derived from unlawful subletting to the landlord.
In practical terms, these rulings open up significant prospects for landlords who are victims of unauthorised subletting. Until now, actions were mainly directed against the tenant, whose solvency is not always guaranteed. The possibility of taking action against Airbnb, which is solvent and has significant resources, considerably strengthens the chances of obtaining redress. For co-ownership associations, these decisions also provide an additional lever when illicit tourist rentals disrupt the enjoyment of common areas or violate the co-ownership rules. Furthermore, competing short-term rental platforms are directly affected by this case law, the scope of which extends beyond the sole case of Airbnb.
These two rulings mark a significant turning point in the regulation of digital platforms regarding rentals. Landlords facing illicit subletting now have every interest in precisely documenting the income received via the platform and considering joint action against both the tenant and the platform. Legal assistance is essential to determine the most appropriate litigation strategy for each situation.
References: Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 7 January 2026, no. 23-22.723 and no. 24-13.163