The ongoing digitalization of economic and social relations – most visibly manifested in the rise of digital platforms – has deeply affected urban centers, despite lacking a territorial anchor. These new dynamics pose significant challenges for cities, as they often evade traditional taxation systems and the ability of local governments to monitor territory and manage tourist flows.
Attractive urban areas are particularly affected by the phenomenon known as “airification”[1], that is, the transformation of a significant number of residential properties from long-term housing to short-term tourist rentals[2]. This process, which exacerbates overtourism, has far-reaching impacts on the livability of historic city centers: from the scarcity of essential services to the replacement of local businesses, rising rents and property prices, and the displacement of vulnerable groups – such as renters, students, migrants, or people with disabilities – and ultimately of long-term residents, due to declining quality of life.
This scenario stands in stark contrast to Henri Lefebvre’s 1978 reflections on the “right to the city”[3]. Instead of fostering collective, collaborative urban life, the city is increasingly treated as an asset – either through concentrated ownership of housing stock for tourism purposes or via its transient use by short-term visitors.
This fragmented and conflict-laden context involves overlapping competences at the national, regional, and local levels. Most regulatory attempts concerning short-term rentals have, in fact, been subject to litigation before both the Constitutional Court and administrative judges.
In Italy, the national legislator first intervened through the so-called “Airbnb Law” (Art. 4 of Decree-Law no. 50/2017), which primarily addressed tax compliance. The law required intermediaries, including digital platforms, to report rental data, withhold a 21% tax on payments, and – if not based in Italy – appoint a tax representative in the Country.
Airbnb challenged these provisions, claiming its classification as an “information society service” under Directive 2000/31/EC, a status previously affirmed by the CJEU in response to a preliminary reference from a French administrative court, using the so-called Uber Test[4]. The platform brought a case before the Regional Administrative Tribunal (TAR) of Lazio; after the TAR upheld the law, the Council of State made a new preliminary reference to the CJEU[5], questioning whether the law violated the EU principle of free movement of services (Art. 56 TFEU)[6]. The CJEU ultimately confirmed the law’s validity, finding that most of the contested provisions were proportionate to the legitimate aim of combating tax evasion.
While awaiting the CJEU ruling, several municipalities – despite their weak bargaining position – entered into agreements with Airbnb, mostly concerning the collection of tourist taxes and the promotion of fair rental practices, criticized by some for being overly dependent on the platform’s negotiating power and lacking effective enforcement tools; in 2022, though, Airbnb began directly collecting tourist taxes in Italy and signed a cooperation agreement with the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) to support local authorities.
Following that ruling, the national legislator introduced other provisions, beyond taxation, such as the requirement for a National Identification Code (CIN) under Decree-Law no. 145/2023. As legal scholarship has pointed out, however, in addressing the urban and housing impacts of short-term rentals, regional authorities, despite their significant regulatory powers, have largely been absent from the debate[7], even though some Regions have recently taken action[8]. Notably, over the next few months, the Emilia-Romagna Region is launching a participatory process aimed at drafting a regional law on short-term rentals, involving local governments as well as stakeholders representing the various and often conflicting interests at stake[9].
Today, the first examples of local regulation – often built upon regional legislation – show diverging approaches. The City of Bologna, for instance, pending the regional law on short-term rentals, amended the General Urban Plan (PUG) and the Building Regulation, including a minimum size of 50 square meters for tourist rental units, the creation of a dedicated urban zoning category for B&B properties, and other provisions. This strategy relies primarily on the municipal authority over urban planning: this field is indeed recognized by courts as a constitutionally protected value and thus inherently multi-level, going beyond a simple allocation of administrative tasks, and the amendments were upheld by the administrative judge[10].
Other attempts to regulate short-term rentals with a more tourism-focused approach – such as in Sirmione, where the local rules were based on the region’s tourism legislation – have fared less well in court. The Council of State overturned a ruling by the TAR of Brescia[11], which had allowed the municipality to ban tourist rentals in certain cases (e.g., properties without adequate parking): the Council held that non-commercial tourist rentals fall outside the scope of public authorities’ prescriptive or prohibitory powers. The ruling, nevertheless, was based on Lombardy’s regional law and therefore the outcome cannot be generalised.
The City of Florence, on its side, adopted a further approach, in some ways similar to that of Venice, by linking the issue of short-term rentals to the protection of its historic center as a UNESCO World Heritage Site: this strategy was first implemented with an amendment to the General Urban Plan, which was the matter of a ruling by TAR Toscana[12] decided on procedural grounds, while a Regulation more focused on the tourist aspects of short-term rentals is currently being approved. This solution overlays cultural heritage and landscape protection with tourism policy and urban planning.
These emerging regulatory perspectives need close attention. Beyond informing possible solutions to the challenges posed by short-term rentals, they offer valuable insight into the evolving balance of powers within Italy’s multi-level governance system: an issue that may reemerge in other policy areas affected by global phenomena.
[1] S. Picascia, A. Romano, M. Teobaldi, The airification of cities: making sense of the impact of peer to peer short term letting on urban functions and economy, Proceedings of the Annual Congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning, Lisbon 11-14 July 2017.
[2] M.E. Bucalo, I servizi delle piattaforme online fra giurisprudenza sovranazionale e interna e necessità di regolazione dell’economia collaborativa. Riflessioni a partire dal caso Airbnb, Federalismi.it, 22, 2020. [3] H. Lefebvre, Le Droit à la ville, Paris, Anthropos, 1968. [4] C-390/18 [5] C-83/21. Cons. di Stato no. 9188/2023. [6] F. Pizzolato, D. Testa, Libertà economiche ed autonomia locale: strumenti e lacune della tutela giurisdizionale, in M. Bertolissi, C. Pagliarin (a cura di), Il destino delle risorse pubbliche. Reperimento gestione giurisdizione, Napoli, Jovene, 2023. [7] D. Tumminelli, Le “locazioni brevi” e il (mancato) ruolo svolto da Regioni ed enti locali nella materia del “governo del territorio”, Istituzioni del Federalismo, 1, 2023. [8] F. Fracchia, P. Pantalone, Salvaguardia delle identità locali, corretto uso del territorio ed esigenze del mercato: il caso delle locazioni brevi ai tempi della sharing economy, Consulta Online, 1, 2022. [9] For further information, please refer to the following link: < https://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/notizie/2025/aprile/casa-via-al-percorso-verso-una-legge-regionale-per-disciplinare-gli-affitti-brevi-a-uso-turistico-il-primo-tavolo-entro-maggio>. [10] TAR Emilia-Romagna no. 308/2025. [11] Cons. Stato no. 2928/2025. [12] TAR Toscana n. 858/2024.