An Odessa hotel was penalized for falsely claiming to have four stars

The appeals court upheld the ruling regarding unfair competition by the "Odessky Dvorik" hotel. The court found that the hotel had posted information on booking websites claiming to have a four-star rating without official confirmation.

This is stated in the ruling of the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeals.

The panel dismissed the complaint filed by the hotel’s former owner (G.M. Kogan, sole proprietor) and upheld the position of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.

Since the entrepreneur had already ceased operations by the time the case was heard, the Antimonopoly Committee did not impose a monetary fine on him. However, the violation has been recorded in the state register of AMCU decisions and court rulings. This means that the businessman no longer has the right to resume business operations under the same brand.

The ruling states that the antitrust authorities conducted an investigation into the hotel’s operations following a complaint from a civic organization. According to the findings of the investigation and the case materials, the “four-star” rating appeared not only on the hotel’s official website but also on popular online accommodation booking platforms, including Booking.com. The entrepreneur did not have an official document or certificate confirming this rating.

The plaintiff attempted to challenge the AMCU’s findings, claiming that he had independently removed the information from his own website, while the data on third-party aggregators was allegedly posted without his direct control. An additional argument in the defense was the cessation of business activities after the violation was identified.

The judges rejected these arguments and noted that the business entity itself is the primary source of data for online booking services. According to the appellate ruling, the mere fact of disseminating false information already constitutes a violation of the law on protection against unfair competition, and the subsequent closure of the sole proprietorship does not negate liability for the actions committed.

Юлія Калабайда