By Alexander Sapov

This article is the second in a four-part series, aiming to provide an authoritative analysis of ISS vs. aggregator models in ride-booking, and what’s at stake when choosing one over the other.

You can read the previous article at the following link:

Here, we will explore how the differences in ISS vs aggregator operation feed directly into how laws classify each type of platform, which, in turn, drives the relevant regulatory and compliance implications.

Regulatory burden and platform liability

Regulatory scope

The legal classification of a ride-booking platform as either an ISS or an operator/aggregator carries significant regulatory consequences.

In the EU, a platform deemed to be providing transport services (aggregator model) is required to comply with each country’s transport regulations and licensing rules. This can include obtaining dispatch licenses, paying VAT, adhering to local taxi laws, fare controls, and other regulatory approvals in every city or country of operation. Uber’s classification as a transport service provider, for example, meant it fell outside the protective scope of the EU’s horizontal digital-services rules and could be regulated at the national or municipal level like any taxi company. This led to Uber facing bans or restrictions in various jurisdictions unless it obtained specific licenses or adjusted its service to meet local laws.

By contrast, an ISS-classified platform is generally governed by the EU E-Commerce Directive and related EU-wide rules, rather than a patchwork of local transport laws. Being an ISS doesn’t exempt a company from all regulation, but rather shifts the regulatory burden away from sector-specific rules (like taxi regulations) and onto the regime for online intermediaries. The Airbnb ruling in 2019 illustrates this. Given Airbnb was deemed an ISS and “merely an intermediary” that did not control the actual accommodation service, France could not simply apply its real-estate broker laws to the platform, without adhering to EU notification procedures. In essence, ISS status grants a form of regulatory immunity from certain local licensing requirements, or at least subjects any restrictions to EU oversight for proportionality.

Liability and safe harbour

Another critical aspect is liability. Under the E-Commerce Directive, ISS platforms benefit from limited liability for the content or activities of their users, provided the platform’s role is neutral (the so-called “hosting” safe harbour) and it acts promptly to remove illegal content when notified. For ride platforms, this means that, if classified as an ISS, the company is generally not automatically liable for, say, a driver’s misconduct or an accident, beyond basic duties of care, since the platform is not considered the provider of the service. The recent Star Taxi App judgment reaffirmed that ride-hailing apps meeting the ISS criteria should be treated as “information society services” and thus shielded from direct liability for the services performed via the app. Consumers still have legal protection – they can pursue the actual service provider (driver/operator) for any damages, and consumer laws still require truthful information and fair terms – but the platform itself is not on the hook as a transport operator would be.

In contrast, an aggregator-like platform, ruled to be a transport service, may find itself directly responsible for service failures. If Uber is a transport provider, for instance, a city can require it to have certain insurance, can hold it accountable for driver vetting, or even implicate it in employment law issues. (Notably, the question of driver employment status is separate, but related: the more control a platform exerts – as aggregators do – the more courts have considered whether drivers are effectively workers of the platform. ISS platforms that just connect independent businesses face less risk of that particular issue.)

Platform responsibility and consumer protection

With great control comes great responsibility. An aggregator platform, by inserting itself as the service orchestrator, often must take on customer service obligations, handling complaints, refunds and safety measures akin to a provider. Regulators may insist on passenger safety standards, 0data reporting, and other consumer protection measures as part of granting the service licence. By contrast, an ISS platform can argue that its role is limited to facilitating the contract between rider and driver, and that it fulfills its obligations by ensuring transparency of information, secure payment, and perhaps a ratings system for quality.

For consumers, the difference may not be obvious at first glance – after all, whether you book a car on a marketplace or an aggregator, you expect a safe ride and some recourse if things go wrong. But legally, the recourse paths differ. On an ISS marketplace, the rider’s contract is with the driver, so any legal claim for, say, a lost bag or an injury might technically be against the driver or their insurance. The platform, while likely providing support, is not the provider of the ride. However, ISS platforms often voluntarily implement consumer protection features (insurance programmes, 24/7 support, refund policies) to stay competitive and trustworthy.

The key point is that ISS classification spares the platform from being mandated by transport-specific laws to provide such protections, whereas an aggregator might be required by law to do so – for example, some jurisdictions force licensed taxi operators to have certain complaint resolution procedures and liability coverage.

In summary, the legal classification deeply impacts how a platform must operate. An aggregator model faces a heavier regulatory load and direct accountability for the service, while an ISS model enjoys a lighter regulatory touch, but must rely on smart marketplace design (and proactive self-regulation) to ensure quality and trust. As EU judges put it, if a platform “sets fares, selects suppliers and controls how the service is rendered”, it will be treated as the primary provider and bear the regulatory burdens. If instead it “merely introduces parties” who then handle pricing and execution themselves, it can remain a neutral intermediary.

This legal distinction has profound implications for scalability and strategy, which we will explore in the third article in this series.

Alexander Sapov is co-founder and CEO of GetTransfer.com, a global travel marketplace operating under the Information Society Services (ISS) model.

GetTransfer is headquartered on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, whose tourism sector is booming in spite of global turbulence, drawing a record of over four million visitors in 2024​. This resilience in travel demand, coupled with the country’s business-friendly climate, makes Cyprus a strategic and innovative base for a globally-scaling tech company​. Positioned at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East and Asia – alongside a supportive ecosystem recognised as one of the EU’s fastest-growing startup hubs  – Cyprus offers both connectivity and stability. Nevertheless, while proudly headquartered on the island, GetTransfer maintains a global perspective and reach, serving travellers well beyond Cypriot shores.