Vacation Rentals: Can the Government Require Registration?

Dear Airbnb Representatives:

Aruba is known as One Happy Island. We take pride in welcoming visitors. In that same spirit, I welcome your engagement with our host community and your initiative in organizing a virtual meeting on November 3. That welcome comes with a straightforward question: what legal authority supports the registration requirement described in your invitation? I welcome clear, lawful, and workable regulation. But Airbnb should verify what the law requires before presenting a government announcement as a binding obligation.

Your invitation presents a requirement

In your invitation to the November 3, 2026 virtual meeting, Airbnb states that every existing vacation rental, including properties already holding a permit, “will need to register” once the government opens its registration window. That is a categorical statement about what hosts must do. Yet the authority identified in the invitation is the Council of Ministers’ approval of a plan.

According to a media report, the latest government announcement on October 30 describes registration as voluntary. But when the big announcement was made, the word voluntary wasn't used!! Could this be backtracking? Realizing that there is no legal basis? It announces an information website available that day, with registration opening November 1 at noon and closing January 31, 2027. Participation is linked to assessment and possible inclusion in a temporary tolerance framework.

Airbnb and other similar operators should reconcile these statements. A legal obligation, a voluntary invitation and a condition for consideration under a discretionary policy are different propositions. Hosts deserve to know which applies.

Council of Ministers Approval Is Not Equal to Legislation

A Council of Ministers decision is not, merely because the ministers approved it, a generally binding regulation. It is not itself a national ordinance, a national decree containing general measures or a ministerial regulation.

Chapter V of Aruba’s Constitution establishes the framework for those legislative instruments. Articles V.1, V.8 and V.9 address their adoption, publication and entry into force. Council of Ministers approval may initiate legislation or implementation within existing statutory powers. It does not, by itself, create new obligations binding on citizens, Airbnb hosts or Airbnb.

Those familiar with government practice will recognize a further distinction. In my experience, extracts of Council of Ministers decisions carry express qualifications that no rights may be derived from them. Airbnb should obtain the actual decision and examine its terms. If registration is compulsory, identify the precise provision creating that obligation, the competent authority and the effective date.

A website does not create an obligation

Aruba’s ED Card (www.edcardaruba.aw) illustrates the distinction. Its completion requirement has a clear legal basis. Article 1 of the Toelatingsbesluit 2009 defines the electronic ED Card, while Article 2 establishes the completion requirement and its exceptions. The website implements that framework; it does not create it.

For this vacation rental registration scheme, the published material examined here has yet to demonstrate the corresponding legal foundation. Council of Ministers approval, an announcement, and a functioning website do not supply it. Calling registration voluntary does not settle the separate questions about authority to collect and use information or attach adverse consequences to nonparticipation. Those require their own legal justification.

Sidenote: unlike the EdcardAruba.aw the registration website appears to be a .com, which triggers the question why is information about Aruba property owners/residents stored outside of Aruba?

Apply Airbnb’s own standards

Airbnb’s Terms of Service expect hosts to understand and comply with applicable laws, including registration and licensing requirements where they apply. Identifying the applicable law is therefore essential to Airbnb’s own message. Its Privacy Policy links trust to transparency about personal information and privacy protection. Those commitments should also guide its participation in this process.

Please distinguish what Aruban law requires, what the government requests, and what Airbnb independently chooses to impose under its contracts. If Airbnb adopts its own restrictions, explain their contractual basis rather than attributing them to an unverified legal obligation.

Any proposal to register hosts or listings on their behalf requires particular scrutiny. Do not assume that an existing platform relationship authorizes enrollment in a government registry or disclosure of the requested information. Identify the specific authority and obtain informed consent where required. Acting without the necessary authority or consent could create separate contractual and privacy issues.

Hosts should make an informed choice

Hosts considering voluntary registration should examine the declarations, conditions and privacy notice before submitting information. Who controls the data? Who receives it? For which purposes may it be used? What protection does participation actually provide?

They should also assess the stated consequences of nonparticipation against their individual legal position. An already lawful operation and a property seeking discretionary tolerance do not necessarily stand in the same position. Airbnb should explain the voluntary process accurately, allowing hosts to make an informed decision.

Other platforms and commercial consequences

The implications extend beyond Airbnb. Properties are also marketed through Booking.com, Vrbo and direct booking websites. Airbnb should ask whether the proposed requirements apply equally across these channels and how it will enforce them consistently. If Airbnb restricts listings or bookings while competing platforms do not take equivalent measures, hosts and guests could migrate. Airbnb could lose market share without producing consistent regulation.

Depending on the applicable contracts and circumstances, affected hosts might also explore contractual or other civil claims. Collective proceedings could be considered where available, subject to jurisdiction, procedural requirements and enforceable arbitration provisions or class action waivers.

A signature is not an enforceable indemnity

Any suggested government indemnity deserves careful examination. Anyone can sign a piece of paper. A signature alone does not establish authority or make an indemnity valid and enforceable. Ask who may give it, which approvals and financial authority are required, and whether those requirements have been satisfied. If additional legal steps are necessary, Airbnb should not assume they will be completed simply because it has promised protection. Promised protection is no substitute for enforceable protection. Even a valid indemnity would not itself make an unlawful measure lawful.

Verify before acting

Please treat this letter as a request to question, verify and validate the scheme’s legal foundation. Use your meeting to understand the government’s position and examine the supporting instruments before making implementation commitments. Existing tax, licensing and planning obligations remain relevant. The question is whether each additional requirement has a proper legal basis.

Airbnb expects hosts to follow applicable law. Its own participation should meet that same standard, supported by verified authority rather than government assurances.

Dr. Lincoln D. Gomez Aruba