< Back to insights hub

Article

Travel Law Updates: Australia, EU, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand and UK 22 October 2026

Australia

Changes to unfair contract terms

From 1 July 2027, a company will breach the Australian Consumer Law (“the ACL”) if, in its conduct with a consumer, it

  • unreasonably distorts the environment in which a consumer decides on a transaction or it manipulates that consumer; and
  • causes, or is likely to cause, detriment to that consumer.

The following conduct will be prohibited:

"These changes appear to target the way in which online platforms and websites engage with Australian consumers and anticipate the further embedding of AI into online platforms."

  • manipulation and unreasonable distortion of consumer behaviour through false urgency, high pressure sales tactics and complex or confusing content which makes it difficult for consumers to locate or understand critical information;
  • ‘dark patterns’: tactics and processes which could influence or pressure consumers into transactions that they do not fully understand. This includes the use of pre-selected options, obscure or hard-to-find cancellation and variation options and buttons, countdown timers and misleading scarcity claims;
  • drip pricing: all charges and fees must be displayed at the same time as the base price is displayed to a consumer. For charges and fees which are not known at the time the base price is displayed, the method of calculation must be displayed at the same time as the base price is displayed; and
  • transaction-based charges that are not mandatory must be displayed more prominently and much earlier in the booking flow than at the payment stage.

It is not necessary to demonstrate actual detriment. Negative non-financial consequences suffered by a consumer, such as inconvenience and lost time, appear sufficient. The more likely triggers may be in:

  • complex or onerous complaint and refund procedures;
  • promotions and incentives offered in the booking flow; and
  • online sales tactics and content.

Takeaways:

  • online booking flows should be reviewed and updated in advance of 1 July 2027. Enforcement of these changes by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission can be expected to be thorough and aggressive from 1 July 2027; and
  • these changes appear to target the way in which online platforms and websites engage with Australian consumers and anticipate the further embedding of AI into online platforms.

European Union

Jurisdiction in the digital age

In September 2026, the EU Court of Justice (“CJEU”) ruled on a claim involving Vueling and the application of Article 33(3) of the Montreal Convention, which allows proceedings to be filed ‘in a place of business through which the contract was made’.  The claimant made a booking online from her home and argued that the contract was ‘made’ there. The CJEU determined that the Article 33(3) requires a physical presence of the carrier. In this case, as the carrier did not have a physical place of business in the town in which the claimant lived, she could not file proceedings against the carrier in the local court with jurisdiction over her home. The CJEU also concluded that because jurisdiction is triggered by the carrier’s conduct, it was necessary for passenger claims to be heard by courts with jurisdiction over the carrier’s domicile, its places of business and operation, and the airports to and from which it flew the passenger.

For claims concerning Article 17 of the Montreal Convention which applies to ‘accidents’ and claims arising from such an ‘accident’, the ability of a claimant to commence proceedings under the Montreal Convention in their principal and permanent residence is limited to jurisdictions where the carrier operates flights, either as the marketing or operating carrier, or has a physical presence.

Key takeaways:

  • the jurisdictional thresholds remain unchanged notwithstanding the significant expansion on online flight platforms operated by airlines, OTAs and other intermediaries and the corresponding reduction in the physical presence of airlines outside their home jurisdiction thorough outsourcing, codesharing and alliances; and
  • whilst this decision is generally favourable to airlines, there remains the risk that the CJEU may take a different view in the future.
Updated airline passenger compensation regime

From 23 October 2027, EU Regulation 2026/2022 will apply and update the existing Regulation 261/2004. The key changes are as follows.

Compensation for delayed flights:

< Back to insights hub

Key contacts

"Rerouting must now include alternative flights offered by other carriers, including competitors and airlines outside the same alliance."

  • the creation of an express statutory right of compensation for delayed flights;
  • reimbursement must be made within seven days without requiring affected passengers to separately apply for reimbursement, and it must include intermediary fees;
  • delay is now defined as the difference between the actual time of arrival, when the aircraft reaches its parking stand and its brakes are applied, and the arrival time included in the flight details in the ticket issued at the time of the booking;
  • there are some exceptions for rescheduled flights;
  • ‘tarmac delay’ is defined as at least 30 minutes delay between touchdown and the aircraft doors being opened and where the aircraft is stationary with its doors closed before take-off;
  • where there is a tarmac delay, the airline must allow passengers access to the aircraft toilets, ensure that the temperature onboard is appropriate and provide free drinking water, except where providing water would result in safety or security issues. Where the tarmac delay is at an EU airport and is longer than two hours, the aircraft must be allocated another parking space where the passengers can disembark, except where this would result if safety, security, air traffic control or immigration issues;
  • where a passenger has connecting flights under a single contract of carriage and a connection is missed because an earlier flight was delayed, the new regulation makes the operating carrier of the delayed flight responsible for rerouting affected passengers. If this cannot be done within five hours, this carrier must compensate affected passengers for a delay of more than three hours;
  • ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are now defined to expressly include circumstances not inherent in the normal operations of an airline and beyond its actual control. This now expressly includes weather conditions which affect the safe operation of a flight, unruly passengers and certain categories of strikes. The carrier must demonstrate that the circumstances are exceptional, that there is a direct causal link between the circumstance/s and the delayed or cancelled flight and that even if the carrier took all reasonable steps, the delay or cancellation could not have been avoided;
  • affected passengers are not entitled to compensation if the airline provides 14 days’ notice of a flight cancellation or, where the carrier provides less than 14 days’ notice, affected passengers are not entitled to compensation if they are offered an alternative flight which departs up to one hour before the scheduled time of departure and arrives at the airport of destination up to two hours before the scheduled time of arrival of the cancelled flight;
  • airlines can no longer deny carriage on a return or further sector because the passenger did not travel on the outbound or previous sector;
  • claims submitted on behalf of a passenger by a third party must now include valid authorisation to do so on behalf of the passenger; and
  • passengers must submit claims within nine months of the date of the original flight.

Takeaways:

  • a number of these changes codify decisions of the EU courts, including the CJEU, interpreting the terms of EC 261/2004;
  • rerouting must now include alternative flights offered by other carriers, including competitors and airlines outside the same alliance;
  • where tickets are booked through an intermediary rather than directly with the carrier, automatic reimbursement within seven days may prove difficult, particularly where the carrier does not have a direct relationship with the affected passenger and does not have sufficient information to reimburse the affected passenger;
  • this should provide greater clarity and certainty on the application of EC 261/2004 to passenger claims and appears intended to reduce the significant number of cases in which the application of EC 261/2004 is referred to the CJEU. These referrals delay the outcome of proceedings brought by and payment of compensation to consumers; and
  • a key criticism of EC 261/2004 was the interpretation of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, including interpretations and judgments which ignored the commercial and operational context and circumstances in which a flight was operated by an airline. Whilst the new regulation provides some clarity and definition to the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, as the burden of demonstrating that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ caused the delay or cancellation of a flight remains with the carrier, EU courts will continue to have broad bases on which to continue to find airlines responsible. This is unlikely to provide certainty on what constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstances’ for airlines or their passengers.

Indonesia

Online platforms blocked

"As the digitalisation of travel and the reliance on online tools and processes continues to increase, this is a timely reminder of the risks to online systems and the need to ensure that operating systems are resilient and alternative systems can be quickly and efficiently implemented in the event of disruptions to online systems and functions."

In July 2026, websites and mobile apps of foreign airline, hotel and travel companies were blocked or warned of being blocked by the Ministry of Communication for failing to complete their registration as an Electronic System Operator (Penyelenggara Sistem Elektronik/PSE). Whilst access was restored within a few days, the disruption had a material impact on the companies whose websites and apps were blocked.

Takeaway: as the digitalisation of travel and the reliance on online tools and processes continues to increase, this is a timely reminder of the risks to online systems and the need to ensure that operating systems are resilient and alternative systems can be quickly and efficiently implemented in the event of disruptions to online systems and functions.

Japan

Changes to Tokyo’s accommodation tax

The Japanese government has approved changes to the accommodation tax regime for Tokyo from April 2027. In addition to hotels and ryokan, private accommodation (Minpaku) in Tokyo will now be subject to an accommodation tax. The key changes are as follows:

  • existing: JPY 10,000 to 14,999/night: JPY 100/night and in excess of JPY 15,000: JPY 200/night; and
  • from April:
    • up to JPY 13,000 (approximately USD 82): no tax
    • from JPY 13,000: 3% of the nightly rate

This reflects moves by Japanese prefectures and cities to use accommodation taxes to address the pressure on infrastructure of growing tourism demand.  The changes apply equally to Japanese and foreign tourist, reflecting the administrative difficulties of different taxation regimes on smaller operators of hotels and ryokans and the application of the accommodation tax to private accommodation, including Air BnB-style short term rentals.

Takeaways:

  • terms and conditions for hotels and private accommodation in Tokyo should be reviewed to ensure that these changes are accommodated in existing terms and conditions;
  • Consumer-facing content for bookings from 1 April 2027 should also be checked to ensure that the new taxes are applied in accordance with the updated law.

Thailand

Expanded takedown orders for online content

On 18 July 2026, an expedited takedown mechanism for online content came into force. This was notified by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (“MDES”) and allows a Thai court to order online content to be removed on the basis of an ‘urgent necessity’. This is in addition to existing removal options available to the government in relation to online content. The most critical aspects for online platforms are:

  • removal of content contrary to the good moral or public order of the Thai people;
  • content which incites or encourages social division, hatred or violence;
  • content which is disrespectful to Buddhism; and
  • content advertising or offering alcohol for sale.

Takeaways:

"These are broad, expansive and undefined categories without clear guidance on how they will be defined and interpreted by the Thai courts."

  • these are broad, expansive and undefined categories without clear guidance on how they will be defined and interpreted by the Thai courts;
  • whilst a court order to remove content can only be made following an application by an MDES officer, these will largely be dealt with ex parte and any subsequent challenge may involve lengthy proceedings in the Thai courts;
  • these changes are likely to result in an increase in orders to remove content from online platforms and websites;
  • the changes relating to alcohol may prove the most challenging. For example, a promotion involving a sporting event, which is sponsored by an alcohol company, could trigger such a takedown order;
  • increased monitoring of online content in real time will be required; and
  • it remains unclear to what extent these changes will apply to offshore platforms, including the orders of a Thai court against an offshore platform.

UK

Misleading airline adverts about offsetting banned

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) has continued to ban airline advertising for misleading statements about the environmental impact of their operations and programmes. The ASA ordered Eurowings to remove adverts which encouraged passengers to offset the carbon emissions of their flight on the basis that consumers could be misled that offsetting would materially reduce the environmental impact of their flight. The ASA also banned Qatar Airways adverts on LinkedIn which also encouraged passengers to use offsetting. The ASA rejected the submission that the adverts were aimed at corporate customers with a deeper understanding of sustainability, sustainability reporting and offsetting programmes, which resulted in a higher threshold for misleading statements, on the basis that the adverts could be accessed by the general public. The ASA also found the adverts misleading because the offsetting was not directly linked to specific or individual flights.

Takeaways:

  • the ASA is using AI to monitor and review an ever-increasing number of adverts by airlines, including targeted Google and LinkedIn adverts;
  • statements about the impact of offsetting should be carefully worded to address potentially misleading content, particularly in relation to the environmental impact of offsetting;
  • adverts which deal with the environmental impact of offset and reducing the carbon footprint of flights should be reviewed for potential greenwashing claims; and
  • the ASA’s approach is likely to be replicated in other markets.

< Back to insights hub

Key contacts

Follow us on