And as always it will backfire on users!

Now it is impossible to find unlimited rentals, every contract has yearly extensions! In some countries landlords even rotate tenants every two years, else they would get extra rights from long stay.

In Russia literally everyone does 11-month rental contracts that are extended every 11 months because a year or more means the tenant would get more rights and they would also need to pay taxes.

Limited rentals are actually banned unless you have a very specific reason (you plan to occupy the flat yourself, you plan to renovate extensively or the flat is meant for temp workers - so no extensions and much shorter intervals) in Germany as well.

This is misleading. I moved to Germany last year and there's a whole secondary market - much bigger than I've seen in any other country, in sublets. While you officially need anmeldung (city registration) to live anywhere in Germany, there are at least as many sublet apartments without anmeldung available as official rental apartments on the open market. They're usually a good deal cheaper too. Lots of people (immigrants especially) have their 'official' anmeldung with a friend or relative, and move between short term sublets (1 - 6 months, but usually 3 or less) for years at a time. There doesn't seem to be any regulation of this sublet market at all - except by the management of individual apartments (where the subletter is in violation of their own rental agreement).

I don't think it is misleading, it is simply a different class of problem. And as you said yourself, in most cases these subleases are not actually legal.

Seems to work well in Germany, though.

Because limited rentals are mostly banned, and being caught on a violation is quite bad.

But isn't that the exact point? That strong consumer protection enables business to earn money in a way that at least prohibits the worst behavior towards the consumers?

So essentially what OP stated?

The trick is to keep the rules reasonable.

If the owner could go to a small cases court and get a bad tenant kicked out with minimal cost, he wouldn't try so hard to defend against the rule.

I don’t know from which countries you got such pessimistic view, but for me that’s unheard

In France, it is the case but strangely what we hear and read on the news is often the case of homeowners being unable to access their homes[1] or having tenants not pay their rent and not being kicked out[2].

Either way people will use the system to their advantage.

[1]: https://www.bfmtv.com/immobilier/un-proprietaire-dont-le-log....

[2]: https://www.ladepeche.fr/2021/11/12/temoignages-loyers-impay...

decades ago in germany a court decided that people had a right to phone service and it could not be cut even without payment because that would cause an undue restriction to be able to function. (this was pre-internet, so i can't find a reference). there is a more recent court decision that states that service may only be cut if the lapse in payment is sufficiently high,

i believe similarly in the US you can't just take away someones car because without it they might not be able to get to work and probably would never be able to pay for their debt.

likewise having an email address is becoming a necessity in life and therefore closing an email account would make it difficult to function in todays society.

the same goes for having a bank account.

all these things should have legal protection.