Update Information

• Last updated: 2026-02-18
• This article discusses: The Japan Tourism Agency plans to review the "Guidelines/Application Standards" in fiscal year 2026 to make it easier for local governments to take enforceable administrative measures against "nuisance minpaku"; it does not directly announce amendments to legal provisions.

First, the conclusion: Why revise?

After Japan's minpaku (private lodging) entered the "problem governance phase," the biggest pain point is not "whether there are rules," but:

• Resident complaints are mostly concentrated on "living environment" issues such as noise, garbage, late-night comings and goings, gatherings of strangers, and perceptions of public safety and fire risks;
• However, these issues often struggle to form an evidence chain that can lead directly to penalties (Who made the noise? Who threw the garbage? Did the operator fulfill management obligations?);
• As a result, local governments more often remain at the stage of administrative guidance (reminders/advice), and the threshold for actually reaching administrative penalties is high.

Therefore, the goal of revising the guidelines is more like: transforming "nuisance complaints" into verifiable, quantifiable, and accountable management obligations, enabling local governments to more clearly determine: at what point can stronger administrative measures be taken.

1) Why do "nuisance complaints" get stuck at the implementation level?

In terms of system design, the "Private Lodging Business Act" already includes "neighborhood troubles (noise, garbage, etc.)" as regulatory targets; the Japan Tourism Agency also provides explanation pages for nearby residents, clearly stating that operators have obligations to prevent adverse effects on the surroundings, maintain public safety, and prevent crime (e.g., lodgers' registry).

However, at the implementation level, it often gets stuck on three things:

• Difficulty in fact-finding: Complaints occur at night/in public spaces, and evidence is often fragmented.
• Difficulty in attributing responsibility: Is it the individual behavior of guests or a lack of management by the operator?
• Unclear penalty thresholds: What constitutes "frequent complaints"? To what extent does it count as "violation of obligations," allowing stronger measures to be initiated?

2) Changes more likely to be brought by the guideline revision (you can think of it as "standardization of enforcement SOPs")

If translated into operational terms, the guideline revision is likely to strengthen these directions:

• Clarify objective requirements for "penalizable" actions: For example, "frequency/repetition of complaints," "existence of unaddressed records," "existence of inability to contact or be present on-site."
• Standardize the path from administrative guidance to administrative penalties: First guidance, then improvement orders/business suspension, etc. (specific names and levels depend on local systems), with a focus on clearer processes.
• Make "management obligations" into verifiable items: Allow local governments to use records, logs, contact systems, and on-site management plans to determine whether obligations are fulfilled.

For content and SEO: This type of policy change is best suited for creating a "continuous update tracker + tool list," which is more effective at capturing search intent like "news today / regulation update" than writing news summaries.

Below, breaking down the affected operational behaviors along the chain of "complaint occurrence → evidence collection → handling → accountability" (you can also directly turn this section into an operational SOP):

A Key Change: You Will Be Required to "Prove You Fulfilled Management Obligations"

For many operators, the biggest change is not adding a specific material, but:

• In the past, you might only need to "explain after an incident occurs";
• In the future, you may more likely need to "demonstrate in advance that you have systems, records, and a closed loop."

This will directly impact: choice of management companies, operational systems (ticketing/logs), and platform-side rule settings (minimum stay, visitor restrictions, etc.).

Dividing market participants into three categories makes it easier to understand "who is more affected":

1) Landlord Self-Management (Owner Present/Owner Absent)

• More Affected Points: Contact and on-site systems, complaint closed-loop records.
• Typical Risks: No work order/record system, unable to prove "I have handled it promptly" when encountering complaints.

2) Property Management Companies/Operators (Private lodging management)

• More Affected Points: Need to turn "service promises" into auditable SLAs; and ensure stable frontline execution (nighttime response, on-site presence, cleaning, garbage).
• Typical Risks: Contracts are well-written, but on-site execution is inconsistent; once multiple complaints arise, the operator's capabilities are the first to be scrutinized.

3) Platforms/Intermediaries (Private lodging intermediary)

• More Affected Points: Rules and information disclosure. Local governments need to more easily identify "persistent nuisance," making "rule settings/minimum stay/guest restrictions/emergency contact information" on the platform more important.
• Typical Risks: Page information does not match reality, or unable to cooperate in providing necessary record chains.

When creating the AIAIG content matrix, it is recommended to add two tool pages:

• "How to Choose a Compliant Property Management Company: Look at SLA and Complaint Closed-Loop"
• "Private Lodging Operation Record Template Download: Complaint Ledger/Inspection Log/Correction Closed-Loop"