Are no-show clauses incompatible with consumer protection regulation?
Air carriers are being criticized for, allegedly, taking advantage of consumers through their use of no-show clauses, but is this actually the case?
Lately, no-show clauses have been met by a large amount of criticism from national consumer groups. The clauses are being criticized for being unfair consumer practice, and a way for carriers to increase profits at the expense of consumers. The question is whether this critique is justified.
What is a no-show clause?
Many carriers have a no-show clause in their general conditions of carriage.
If a passenger, who does not cancel his reservation before the check in deadline, for any reason misses his flight the no-show clause allows the carrier to cancel any onward or return reservations.
Carriers have been criticized for using the clause to gain an unjustified profit since the carrier often will try to re-sell the ticket, if they cancel a passenger’s reservations.
The clause is essential for maintaining low-fare rates
Nevertheless, the no-show clause is essential to ensure lower fares, better connectivity to smaller communities, and reduce wasted capacity and therefore, the carrier’s need for overbooking flights.
The clause is meant as a protection for the carrier against travelers that use hidden city ticketing, i.e. passengers that buy a layover ticket, but only travel on parts of the journey.
For instance: A flight from Copenhagen (CPH) to Beijing (PEK) with a layover in Stockholm (ARL) is often cheaper than a direct flight from Stockholm to Beijing because of the layover. This is because ticket pricing is based on the journey from departure to destination – not on the individual flight segments. Travelers from Copenhagen to Beijing will often be far more interested in buying a direct flight and consequently, to be able to sell layover flights carriers must lower the fares.
If a passenger buys the journey CPH ARL PEK, but only travels on the ARL PEK part of the route it might have consequences for other travelers.
First, it might induce an increased need to overbook certain flights to ensure that the use of the plane’s capacity is maximized. Second, the carrier might abandon the indirect product, which will mean less competition and therefore increased fare prices as well as a reduced travel options for the consumer.
Incompatible with consumer protection regulation?
Regardless of the purpose of the clause some consumer groups are under the impression that the clause has a negative effect on consumer’s rights since the clause is applicable for all travelers even those that do not use hidden city ticketing.
EU consumer protection regulation is very extensive. In Denmark consumer protection is namely regulated in the Marketing Practices Act, implementing Directive 93/13/ECC on Unfair Commercial Practices. The question is whether no-show clauses are incompatible with these regulations.
Whether a clause is compatible with the consumer protection rules must be determined based on the wording of the clause as well as the carrier’s practice when a passenger misses a flight.
It is worth noticing that no-show clauses often are worded in a way that makes a cancellation of the reservation possible, but it is not given that a cancellation will happen. Whether a passenger’s journey will be cancelled will vary depending on the carrier’s practice and the general circumstances for the no-show.
Both German and Spanish courts have ruled that no-show clauses in some cases are incompatible with the member states’ implementation of the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practice. The EU Court of Justice has acknowledged that member states have a large measure of discretion and the directive on Unfair Commercial Practice only set out minimum standards.
Therefore, some member states may have more strict consumer protection regulations than others. Whether a no-show clause is incompatible with EU regulations and national law must be determined on a case-to-case basis.
Contact the carrier to know your rights
Several carriers have stated that they, if contacted by the passenger, will make sure that the ticket is not cancelled, if the reason for the no-show is that the passenger missed the flight by accident. Additionally, some carriers have stated that they will always try to rebook the passenger that has missed his flight.
IUNO’s opinion
IUNO recommends that all carriers review their conditions of carriage and consider if their wording is incompatible with consumer protection regulation. Carriers should also review their practice and see to that they have clear guidelines which ensure that the no-show clause will not have a negative impact on passengers who miss their flight by accident.
By following the above mentioned practice, the clause should not have negative effects on passengers, but one cannot be too careful since the consequences of non-compliance can be very substantial.
Lately, no-show clauses have been met by a large amount of criticism from national consumer groups. The clauses are being criticized for being unfair consumer practice, and a way for carriers to increase profits at the expense of consumers. The question is whether this critique is justified.
What is a no-show clause?
Many carriers have a no-show clause in their general conditions of carriage.
If a passenger, who does not cancel his reservation before the check in deadline, for any reason misses his flight the no-show clause allows the carrier to cancel any onward or return reservations.
Carriers have been criticized for using the clause to gain an unjustified profit since the carrier often will try to re-sell the ticket, if they cancel a passenger’s reservations.
The clause is essential for maintaining low-fare rates
Nevertheless, the no-show clause is essential to ensure lower fares, better connectivity to smaller communities, and reduce wasted capacity and therefore, the carrier’s need for overbooking flights.
The clause is meant as a protection for the carrier against travelers that use hidden city ticketing, i.e. passengers that buy a layover ticket, but only travel on parts of the journey.
For instance: A flight from Copenhagen (CPH) to Beijing (PEK) with a layover in Stockholm (ARL) is often cheaper than a direct flight from Stockholm to Beijing because of the layover. This is because ticket pricing is based on the journey from departure to destination – not on the individual flight segments. Travelers from Copenhagen to Beijing will often be far more interested in buying a direct flight and consequently, to be able to sell layover flights carriers must lower the fares.
If a passenger buys the journey CPH ARL PEK, but only travels on the ARL PEK part of the route it might have consequences for other travelers.
First, it might induce an increased need to overbook certain flights to ensure that the use of the plane’s capacity is maximized. Second, the carrier might abandon the indirect product, which will mean less competition and therefore increased fare prices as well as a reduced travel options for the consumer.
Incompatible with consumer protection regulation?
Regardless of the purpose of the clause some consumer groups are under the impression that the clause has a negative effect on consumer’s rights since the clause is applicable for all travelers even those that do not use hidden city ticketing.
EU consumer protection regulation is very extensive. In Denmark consumer protection is namely regulated in the Marketing Practices Act, implementing Directive 93/13/ECC on Unfair Commercial Practices. The question is whether no-show clauses are incompatible with these regulations.
Whether a clause is compatible with the consumer protection rules must be determined based on the wording of the clause as well as the carrier’s practice when a passenger misses a flight.
It is worth noticing that no-show clauses often are worded in a way that makes a cancellation of the reservation possible, but it is not given that a cancellation will happen. Whether a passenger’s journey will be cancelled will vary depending on the carrier’s practice and the general circumstances for the no-show.
Both German and Spanish courts have ruled that no-show clauses in some cases are incompatible with the member states’ implementation of the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practice. The EU Court of Justice has acknowledged that member states have a large measure of discretion and the directive on Unfair Commercial Practice only set out minimum standards.
Therefore, some member states may have more strict consumer protection regulations than others. Whether a no-show clause is incompatible with EU regulations and national law must be determined on a case-to-case basis.
Contact the carrier to know your rights
Several carriers have stated that they, if contacted by the passenger, will make sure that the ticket is not cancelled, if the reason for the no-show is that the passenger missed the flight by accident. Additionally, some carriers have stated that they will always try to rebook the passenger that has missed his flight.
IUNO’s opinion
IUNO recommends that all carriers review their conditions of carriage and consider if their wording is incompatible with consumer protection regulation. Carriers should also review their practice and see to that they have clear guidelines which ensure that the no-show clause will not have a negative impact on passengers who miss their flight by accident.
By following the above mentioned practice, the clause should not have negative effects on passengers, but one cannot be too careful since the consequences of non-compliance can be very substantial.
Similar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Legal assistant
Amalie
Sofie Sveen Kvam
Legal assistant
Amanda
Jepsen Bregnhardt
Junior legal assistant
Andrea
Brix Danielsen
Legal assistant
Anna
Bonander
Legal assistant
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal assistant
Anne
Poulsen
Senior legal advisor
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Legal assistant
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal assistant
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Carl-Emil
Schumann Dinesen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Skarsø Erwolter
Legal assistant
Cecilie
Padbjerg Kjelstrup
Legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal assistant
Emma
Engvang Hansen
Legal assistant
Emma
Frøslev Larsen
Legal manager
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal assistant
Frederik
Dybro Mikkelsen
Junior legal assistant
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Senior legal assistant
Gabrielle
Marie Rokkjær
Legal assistant
Gustav
Vestergaard
Legal assistant
Hila
Noori Hashimi
Legal assistant
Ida
Ralfkiær Rask
Legal assistant
Ingrid
Lützner Buch
Legal assistant
Isabella
Graae Norsker
Legal assistant
Isabella
Rocio Nielsen
Legal assistant
Ittqa
Hussain
Legal assistant
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Legal assistant
Josephine
Thenning Kannegaard
Junior legal assistant
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Junior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Legal assistant
Kathrine
Arntzen Lauvstad
Junior legal assistant
Laura
Jørgensen
Legal assistant
Lise
Jørgen Carlsen Gjerde
Associate
Liva
Tværmose Høegh
Legal assistant
Magnus
Henckel Holtse
Legal assistant
Marie
Langermann-Nielsen
Legal assistant
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Legal manager
Nikoline
Lanzky Otto
Legal assistant
Peter
Basbøll
Legal assistant
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal assistant
Selma
Agopian
Senior EU associate
Sille
Lyng Mejding
Legal assistant
Simone
Bjergskov Nielsen
Legal assistant
Sofie
Storli
Legal assistant
Sofija
Cabrilo
Legal assistant
Sophia
Maria Dahl-Jensen
Senior legal advisor