“Single Bookings” by OTAs under Scrutiny: What the ECJ “American Airlines” decision truly means for Airlines in Practice

The “American Airlines” Decision of the ECJ from October 6, 2022 (case no.: C-436/21)

Let’s take a look back: In the “American Airlines” decision, the ECJ ruled that a single booking exists even if a travel agency combines flights from different airlines into a single reservation, charges a total price, and provides a single ticket. Crucial to the court’s reasoning was that it did not matter whether the airlines had a contractual relationship. Rather, the single ticket alone entitled passengers to a continuous transportation right. The ECJ concluded that a single booking or a flight with “direct connecting flights” under Art. 2 lit h) of Reg. (EC) 261/2004 exists if two or more flights are part of a single booking.

Implications for Airlines

The American Airlines decision poses new challenges for airlines when dealing with flights sold by OTAs as connected journeys, even though the airline only operates a portion of the route. One issue in particular is that airlines are often unaware of the additional flights OTAs combine into a “whole” journey through virtual interlining. In these cases, airlines only issue booking numbers for their own flights, while OTAs provide their own “internal” reference number, which typically doesn’t match the airline’s issued booking numbers. This lack of transparency can lead to airlines being held liable unexpectedly. Some OTAs’ terms and conditions at least clarify that certain flight combinations should be considered separate, but this is an exception. Passengers generally have limited awareness of how these details affect their rights in the event of flight disruptions.

Pre-Trial Order of the Regional Court of Landshut from October 22, 2024 – 13 S 1024/24e (Unauthorized Agency)

In October 2024, our Aviation Team could demonstrate in several passenger rights cases that OTA bookings often fail to meet the quality of a “single booking” as defined above.

In a pro-airline pre-trial order from the Regional Court of Landshut, a single booking was rejected in an appeal process. A leading passenger rights portal’s claim for compensation for a flight from Munich to Palma de Mallorca was dismissed in the first instance. The Erding Local Court rejected the claim as it did not recognize the booking confirmation issued by an OTA as a confirmed booking under Reg. (Ec) 261/2004. According to the court’s findings, the booking had been issued by an unauthorized travel agency. No cooperation between the agent and the airline or confirmation of the booking by the defendant could be proven.

The Landshut Regional Court agrees and intends to dismiss the portal’s appeal, noting that an OTA invoice alone does not constitute a “confirmed booking.” An invoice merely reflects the information provided by the issuer. Actions of a third party are, therefore, generally not a clear indicator for a booking confirmation. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff’s reference to the above ECJ ruling does not apply, as it involves a different context: the unauthorized agent does not qualify as a “travel company” under the ECJ definition.

Judgment of Local Court of Königs Wusterhausen (Berlin) of October 11, 2024 – 200 C 54/24 (Invalid “Screen-Scraping” Bookings)

In another related case before the Local Court of Königs Wusterhausen (Berlin), the claim was denied because the passenger rights platform could not prove that the flights from Berlin via Barcelona to Porto were facilitated by an OTA as a single booking. The submitted booking documents included two different booking codes, of which only one could be assigned to the airline we represented. This contradicts German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) and ECJ case law, which requires one booking code for a single booking.

Moreover, the court noted that the OTA repeatedly informed passengers (e.g. in the booking confirmation) that these were separate tickets. Consequently, each ticket required individual check-in, and through-checked baggage was not possible. This was also clearly communicated in the OTA’s terms and conditions, which the court found to preclude a single booking.

The court further noted that the OTA used the so-called “screen-scraping” method, which simulates a booking by a regular passenger, without using the airline’s authorized booking channels for agencies. Therefore, according to the court, the intermediary was not authorized to make an official booking on behalf of the airline.

Judgment of the Local Court of Hannover from September 26, 2024 – 540 C 3176/24 (Lack of Jurisdiction)

In another case, our Aviation Team successfully argued for the dismissal of a claim by the Hannover District Court due to a lack of jurisdiction, given the absence of a “single booking”.

The case involved multiple flight segments from Hannover via Palma de Mallorca to Malaga. The court found that it lacked both local and international jurisdiction, as claims under the Reg. (EC) 261/2004 fall under the jurisdiction of the courts at the port of departure or arrival. In this instance, the claim involved a disruption on the onward flight from Palma de Mallorca to Malaga, so the court held that Spanish courts would have jurisdiction, as the existence of a single booking was denied.

Concluding Remarks

The ECJ case law on “single bookings” and “direct connecting flights” underscores the growing challenges airlines face in a booking environment shaped by OTAs. Airlines should be aware that, in certain situations, they could be held liable for flight disruptions beyond their control.

The recent judgments achieved by our firm demonstrate that, despite the ECJ decision, German courts remain open to the argument that an airline’s liability can be limited to the flight it actually operated or intended to operate (in the event of a disruption). OTAs that independently combine flights do not automatically establish a legal basis for continuous airline liability.

Developing a clear defense strategy is crucial, based on a detailed analysis of booking processes, OTA terms, and a careful review of booking documentation and specific contractual relationships between airlines and OTAs.

As a law firm specializing in aviation law, we support airlines in defending against unjustified passenger claims. Our expertise and recent court successes demonstrate that a well-founded defense strategy not only saves costs but also enhances legal certainty for all involved. Please feel free to contact us!