Who Pays When the Package Breaks? Joint and Several Liability for Tourists’ “Chain Losses” in Malaysia

Contemporary tourism is sold as a bundle. A single package assembled by a tour operator or travel agent draws together a flight, ground transfer, accommodation, and destination activities that are, in reality, performed by a chain of independent suppliers. When one link in that chain fails, tourists suffer cascading “chain losses” that routinely exceed the value of the failed component, yet the question of who must compensate them remains legally unsettled in many jurisdictions. This article examines that question in Malaysia, where responsibility is dispersed across the Tourism Industry Act 1992, the Consumer Protection Act 1999, and the Contracts Act 1950 without any explicit standard of joint and several liability for the package as an integrated product. Adopting a qualitative doctrinal and comparative legal method, the study maps the current Malaysian allocation of liability, benchmarks it against the organiser-centred model of the European Union Package Travel Directive 2015/2302 and the regional experience of Indonesia under Law No. 10 of 2009, and evaluates all three against the principles of fairness, legal certainty, and effective consumer protection. The analysis finds that Malaysia’s fragmented, contract-by-contract logic leaves the structurally weaker traveller to identify and pursue the specific defaulting supplier, a burden that stalls redress and invites liability-shifting through broad exemption and force-majeure clauses. Malaysia converges with its ASEAN peer, Indonesia, on formal protection that fails to translate into practical redress, whereas the European Union channels accountability to a single organiser and pairs it with mandatory insolvency protection. The article proposes a reform framework centred on a statutory organiser-liability rule, a standardised package-travel contract, mandatory financial security, and an accessible dispute-resolution pathway. It contributes the first doctrinal treatment of joint and several liability for bundled packages in Malaysian and ASEAN tourism law, and offers policymakers an implementation-ready template for modernising the 1992 Act.

Tourism Law; Package Travel; Joint and Several Liability; Chain Losses; Consumer Protection

1. Ababil, M. R., Sugiarti, Y., & Fithry, A. (2023). Pertanggungjawaban pelaku usaha atas kerugian wisatawan menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 2009 tentang Kepariwisataan. Jurnal Jendela Hukum, 10(2), 176–196. https://doi.org/10.24929/jjh.v10i2.2982 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abu Bakar, M., Ismail, S., & Azizan, M. H. (2024). Tourism transformation: Addressing legal gaps in Malaysia's Tourism Industry Act 1992. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Environment Management, 9(37). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Borek, D. (2026). Current changes to the insolvency protection system for tour operators: Administrative and legal considerations. Prawo Asekuracyjne. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Borek, D., & Puciato, D. (2023). Extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances in tourism under COVID-19 and post-pandemic times: Casus Poland. Sustainability, 15(3), 2416. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032416 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chen, Z. (2021). The tango between Art. 17(3) Brussels Ibis and Art. 6(4)(b) Rome I under the beat of the Package Travel Directive. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 28(6), 878–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211048595 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chusnida, N. L. (2023). Legal protection of tourists in high-risk tourism activities according to consumer protection law. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2023.V23.1-14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ghapa, N., Abdullah Asuhaimi, F., Harun, N., & Abd Ghadas, Z. A. (2021). An analysis on the consumer legal protection in Umrah package travel industry during Covid-19 pandemic. The Journal of Management Theory and Practice, 2(3), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.37231/jmtp.2020.2.3.173 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hasan, A. A. (2017). A legal analysis and improvements of the force majeure clause in package holiday contracts between travel agents and holidaymakers [Unpublished thesis]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hineva, D. S. (2016). Aspects of updating the European Package Travel Directive and their impact on tourism complaints. Business & Management Compass, 2016(3), 364–376. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Marak, K. (2023). Financial securities for tour operators in case of insolvency resulting from Directive 2015/2302, which are in force in Poland. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Mendieta, E. N. (2020). Towards tourists protection in the digital age. In Consumer protection and the digital economy. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mićović, A. (2025). Insurance contract and protection of travellers against insolvency of package travel organisers. BizInfo (Blace), 16(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.71159/bizinfo250018M [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Mulevičienė, S., et al. (2019). Problems of transposition and implementation of the Package Travel Directive. Jurisprudence. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Nelin, A. (2026). Securing and protecting consumers' rights in the sphere of tourism services: Theoretical and legal aspects of regulation. Legal Ukraine. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Rahman, W. A., et al. (2018). Legal protection of Muslim tourists in Islamic religious tourism in Malaysia: Reality and challenges. International Journal of Engineering & Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Saghoyan, E. (2024). Subject of civil liability for tourist services containing a package tour. Legality [Օրինականություն]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Sergienko, S. Y., et al. (2025). Civil liability of tour operators and travel agents: Prospects for legislative changes. Legal Studies [Юридические исследования]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sobolewska, P. (2023). The effectiveness of the EU Package Travel Directive during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studia Iuridica. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Steennot, R. (2016). Rules of jurisdiction and conflict rules relating to online cross-border contracts concerning touristic services provided to consumers. Computer Law & Security Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Tangian, D., et al. (2025). Legal protection for tourists in air-travel tour packages in Indonesia: Mapping airline rights-obligations and the need for joint liability standards. Educatione, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.59397/edu.v4i1.184 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.