The Swiss travel industry’s debate over customer protection intensified after Barbara Wohlfarth, CEO of Reisecocktail, tabled a proposal at the Swiss Travel Association (SRV) general meeting. Under the plan, SRV-affiliated tour operators would be barred from offering business-to-business (B2B) services to travel agencies without valid customer protection insurance (KGA). Marco Amos, CEO of the Swiss travel industry’s guarantee fund, has responded directly to the proposal, acknowledging its intent while highlighting significant practical hurdles.
Amos stated that the proposal aligns with Article 6.1.3 of the SRV statutes, which requires tour operators to work only with agencies holding legally compliant customer protection. «This request has finally reignited the discussion about compliance, which is long overdue,» he said. «Customer protection is not optional—it’s a legal requirement, and it’s unfair when some agencies exploit that loophole.»
The core issue lies in the statutes’ vague definition of «lawful protection». The rules demand compliance but do not specify what constitutes adequate insurance. Amos warned that strict enforcement would force the SRV into an unintended regulatory role. «The SRV was never designed to act as a market regulator, yet that’s exactly what would happen if it tried to police these details.» The ambiguity becomes even more problematic when distinguishing between pure brokers, who only facilitate bookings without handling payments, and de facto organizers. Legally, brokers acting on behalf of an insured operator do not need their own coverage, but the practical risks remain.
Guarantee fund’s credibility crisis deepens
The guarantee fund does not regulate the market. Yet, it faces reputational damage when customers cannot determine responsibility in insolvency cases. Unclear contracts lead to disputes, eroding industry trust. «If Veranstalter fail to verify their partners’ ability to cover payment defaults, they risk becoming liable for services they were never paid for,» Amos explained. The fund’s involvement deepens the credibility crisis.
Digital bookings and modular travel further complicate the issue by blurring the line between individual services and package deals. Customers often assume they are booking a unified trip when, in reality, they are piecing together separate components. Without clear disclosure of the contractual party and insurance coverage, the guarantee fund struggles to determine liability. «A customer might book a flight and hotel separately but still expect them as a single package, only to discover later that neither booking is fully protected when something goes wrong.»
Legal gray zones confuse customers and agencies
The legal definition of a package tour, requiring pre-arranged components, a single price, and a minimum duration of 24 hours, is frequently misunderstood. Even two separate bookings can sometimes qualify as a package if marketed as a unified offer. «The critical question is what the customer perceives as their purchase,» Amos noted. «If they believe they are buying a combined experience, the law will treat it as such, regardless of how the agency structures the booking.» This perception-based approach makes enforcement difficult, as agencies may inadvertently create package-like arrangements without realizing the legal consequences.
The guarantee fund’s role in disputes over unclear contracts has already damaged the industry’s reputation. When customers cannot identify who is responsible for their money, trust in the sector suffers. «Veranstalter must ensure their partners can cover payment defaults, or they will end up liable for services they never received payment for.» Amos cautioned that without clearer rules, the fund may be forced to absorb risks it was not designed to handle, particularly in cases where agencies lack proper insurance.