A court awarded 5,000 shekels in compensation to a family that returned from an organized tour of Italy, partly after the father testified that the shower stall in one of the hotels measured just 60 by 60 centimeters.
The plaintiff purchased an organized tour of Rome and southern Italy from Eshet Tours, formally Eshet — Organization of Tourism Services. The trip took place in April 2025, during the Easter holiday period. It was booked for four people — the plaintiff, his wife and their two children — at a total cost of 26,600 shekels. The Petah Tikva Small Claims Court partially upheld the father’s lawsuit against Eshet Tours, awarding the family compensation and legal costs.
Gallery
The tour guide’s shower, by contrast, was reasonably sized; illustration
(Photo: Ivan Serebryannikov/Shutterstock)
The plaintiff complained of a series of shortcomings during the vacation. He argued in the lawsuit that the planning was poor, the schedules were unrealistic and the guidance provided was inadequate. He also claimed that Eshet Tours failed to account for the busy Easter Jubilee period, leading to site closures and unusually heavy crowds, and that the choice of hotels was flawed.
Among other complaints, he said the shower stall in the second hotel where the family stayed measured just 60 by 60 centimeters. In his testimony, the father said he had been forced to open the shower door so he could soap himself. He said that when the family raised the issue with the tour guide, the guide responded with laughter or sarcasm and remarked that his own shower was excellent.
Eshet Tours, for its part, argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed. The company said it was not responsible for shortcomings at the hotels, including cleanliness or service, and that the plaintiff should have raised those complaints directly with the hotel at the time.
The company also argued that the plaintiff had known about the expected Easter crowds because the guide had sent a message to the tour’s WhatsApp group about a week before the trip, warning that the sites would be crowded or deserted.
Eshet Tours further claimed that the plaintiff had been given an opportunity to cancel or change the trip dates. It also addressed the complaints about closed sites and optional excursions, saying that payments for optional tours that did not take place had been refunded to the plaintiff and the other travelers. Those excursions, the company said, were optional and were not part of the planned itinerary.
The company stressed that under its terms and conditions, it was entitled to alter the direction of the itinerary and replace guides and hotels, and that such changes did not constitute grounds for canceling the booking.
Tourist crowds at Rome’s Trevi Fountain
(Photo: Shutterstock)
Senior Registrar Itay Sharon decided to partially uphold the lawsuit. Addressing the size of the shower stall in the hotel room where the plaintiff and his family stayed, the court accepted the plaintiff’s claim that it measured 60 by 60 centimeters and impaired the family’s enjoyment of the trip.
The court said the claim was supported by photographs taken in the hotel room and attached to the lawsuit. It also noted that the plaintiff’s assertion that he had complained to the Eshet Tours representative on-site — the tour guide — had not been contradicted. According to the plaintiff, the guide laughed, said the shower in his own room was larger and failed to offer assistance or arrange a room change.
The court rejected Eshet Tours’ argument that it was not responsible for the size of the shower or the room conditions because they reflected the hotel’s standards and fell under its responsibility.
The registrar ruled that when Eshet Tours sends travelers to accommodations with showers so small that they interfere with reasonable comfort and the ability to bathe, as the plaintiff described, the company must inform its customers clearly and in advance and obtain their consent.
The registrar also found that Eshet Tours’ handling of Easter and its consequences amounted to a professional planning failure. He said the implications had not been communicated to the plaintiff clearly or adequately, or in a way that would have allowed him to make an informed decision.
The court rejected some of the plaintiff’s other claims, including complaints about the lack of basic security at the hotels, schedule changes and delays at certain sites. The registrar said those were disruptions or events beyond the company’s control that did not alter the nature or standard of the trip.
Ultimately, the registrar awarded the plaintiff and his family 4,400 shekels in compensation, plus 600 shekels in legal costs.
Eshet Tours did not provide a response.