8 ms·
Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules
- mikeryan 10y agoWould love to hear an opinion on this one from a legal mind, the case does not seem strong for Airbnb from my laymen's couch.
- twinkletwinkle 10y agoNo legal expertise, but the thing that struck me is Campos' extremely flawed analogy. If we want to make comparisons to rental cars, the hosts are the rental companies. There is no third party platform to compare to AirBnB.
- frank_jaeger 10y agoNot currently no. In an unrelated note, I have an idea that just might disrupt the automotive rental industry...
- gorkemyurt 10y agohow about something like Getaround? https://www.getaround.com https://www.getaround.com
- kelnos 10y agoI was thinking the same thing -- this law is more like a hypothetical law requiring people who rent out their cars (not the renters themselves) to register with the city, and requiring Getaround to police that registration.
- swehner 10y agoFirst amendment, for sure. I'm guessing this is about this, "The new law would require Airbnb and other short-term rental websites to post registration numbers on listings or email the number and name of the host to the Office of Short-Term Rentals, The City’s agency tasked with enforcing the regulations." (From http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-poised-require-airbnb-list-registered-hosts-pay-fines/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-poised-require-airbnb-list-regi...) So "their" "free speech rights" are "violated" because they have to post registration numbers.
- ggreer 10y agoIt's nothing so silly. As a counterpoint to the Examiner's piece, please read Airbnb's post about the proposed law: https://www.airbnbaction.com/an-update-for-our-community-in-san-francisco/ https://www.airbnbaction.com/an-update-for-our-community-in-... Basically, the city wants to hold Airbnb responsible for user-generated content. The city also wants Airbnb to hand over users' personal information. Both the EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology think that these requirements violate federal law. (Though EPIC thinks otherwise.)
- ot 10y ago> Basically, the city wants to hold Airbnb responsible for user-generated content. Airbnb gets paid for the rentals, not for the listings. Also, they actively control the content (try putting an URL in the listing). Mistaking Airbnb for a publishing medium for user-generated content seems disingenuous at best.
- bduerst 10y agoI think it's a false dichotomy to say they're either/or - why cant't they be both? If they're actively controlling user generated content, then it's obvious they benefit from better content.
- CodeWriter23 10y agoThat's a specious argument and AirBNB is gonna get spanked hard on that one. Also, the CDA Safe Harbor never intended to shield service providers that receive direct monetary benefit from user content itself.
- ap3 10y agoDon't all sites derive a monetary benefit from the content - be it page view ads or valuation?
- CodeWriter23 10y ago
- ben_jones 10y agoRegardless of how strong Airbnb's legal standing is or isn't, they are the definition of a company who believes it better to ask forgiveness then permission. I believe that maxim is all fine and good when you're a person who cares about the well being of others, but when it's a corporation whose only goal is profit or growth it has the potential to be extremely detrimental to society.
- JoshTriplett 10y agoDepends on your point of view. It's also detrimental to society if every new idea has to prove its viability while following the rules written for (and often purchased by) the previous generation of technology. It'd be a lot easier to get stuck in local maxima that way. Some ideas would never get traction, because getting the rules changed requires power and traction in the first place.
- aaroninsf 10y agoI would submit that this maxim does not well apply to the business model of AirBnB, Lyft, Uber, and the like. They do not IMO represent an interesting application of technology. Just the profits of exploiting lag time between what is possible, and what is 'burdened' by consumer and labor protections. I.e.: the industries they have moved into are highly regulated for pretty transparent reasons. Their MO works well until the regulators catch up.
- bpodgursky 10y agoSeriously? Uber had not proven how much of a quality-of-life improvement it was for users, there is absolutely 0% chance that any city councils would have reformed taxi laws and made explicit exceptions for them, sight-unseen. They are only BARELY at the point where their critical mass of users can force city governments to give them a legal path (see: de Blasio in NYC), and even that doesn't always work (see: Austin).
- Steltek 10y ago
- bpodgursky 10y agoFree speech rights are a stretch here. I wonder if you could make a viable case for the 3rd amendment though (to my knowledge it has never been done). Strictly interpreted, the 3rd amendment prevents the government from being able to force homeowners to quarter soldiers. If you think about the real intent of the bill though, it's obvious that the mindset is "you are free to use your own house without government interference." Realize that at the time, HUGE numbers of homeowners informally had a room or two for boarders to supplement their income. It would have been considered ridiculous at the time for the government to say you couldn't lend a room out for money, which is probably why this interpretation was not formally codified. It's a stretch, but amendments have been interpreted in more creative ways to accomplish personal-freedom goals (think, right to privacy -- interpreted as an implied constitutional right, but not mentioned anywhere).
- snappy173 10y ago>Strictly interpreted, the 3rd amendment prevents the government from being able to force homeowners to quarter soldiers. If you think about the real intent of the bill though, it's obvious that the mindset is "you are free to use your own house without government interference." that's a real stretch. that would nullify all zoning ...
- HarryHirsch 10y agoIt is a stretch. If the Founding Fathers had meant to say you are free to use your property without government interference they would have done that. They had tanneries then, and there is more than a gradual difference between operating a tannery and quartering a bunch of soldiers in someone's house. One interferes with the life of the householder. The other interferes mostly with the life of the neighbours.
- bpodgursky 10y agoMaybe? But then again, the 2nd amendment doesn't allow nuclear weapons, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Would be easy to interpret it as, the right to use residential properties for lodging purposes (hotel, apartments, B&Bs) cannot be violated, without letting you set up industrial operations.
- Spooky23 10y agoAirbnb is an unlimited well of bad PR. They need to start whacking people with a clue-stick.
- randycupertino 10y agoThey'd probably do well to just fire their PR person. This is one of the most unprofessional responses I've ever heard from a company to a reporter: > We emailed Airbnb spokesman Christopher Nulty to ask whether the library ad was "real." He responded by email, "as opposed to a fake one :)" A follow up email, explaining that we were in fact seeking confirmation as to whether the ads are actually from Airbnb received the following response: "Are you seriously writing on this?" Nulty did not respond to another follow up email. http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/10/21/passive-aggressive-pro-airbnb-ads-appear-on-muni-shleters http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/10/21/passive-aggress...
- kafkaesq 10y agoThey'd probably do well to just fire their PR person. No, it's not "the PR person" who's at fault. One way or another, these decisions (and the mentality and ethos that drive them) always trickle down from the top.
- kelnos 10y agoSo basically SF wants companies like Airbnb to do their police/enforcement work for them. The city should be going after the unregistered renters themselves. Sure, that's potentially harder, but I can see that it'd be a burden to order a company to do it for them.
- reza_n 10y agoWho would pay for all this extra enforcement? My guess is that a large portion of this short term rental income is untaxed. Can't have both sides, no regulation and no tax. I pay my share when I rent a hotel. (Apologies if airbnb renters are paying the appropriate city, state, and federal taxes).
- mrgordon 10y agoAirbnb takes the appropriate local taxes automatically as part of the booking
- areyousure 10y agoSan Francisco collects no shortage of taxes.
- kafkaesq 10y agoSo basically SF wants companies like Airbnb to do their police/enforcement work for them. Because it's the most cost-effective way of doing things, and -- in this ethically-challeneged startup culture of ours -- it gets the message across. It's also no different from how regulations are applied to most all other industries in that regard. Liquor stores are required to card anyone who looks like they might possibly be under 21 (and are fined for not doing so). You can argue that the city "should be going after the underage drinkers themselves" -- but decades of empirical evidence suggest this would lead to the laws being widely unenforced.
- mc32 10y agoWhen does Campoes term out anyway? There certainly is a struggle between ownership rights and the right of cities to regulate business within their jurisdiction. As a renter, I can sympathize with wanting to avail more rental properties to renters, but I am also very uneasy with politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property when that act in and of itself is not otherwise illegal. It's not confiscation, but it also kerbs your ability let your property as you wish --and I say this as a renter who arguably would benefit from this politician's policies. PS move HQ to Brisbane and take the corp taxes with you.
- sjwright 10y agoSpeaking entirely out of ignorance, how might these policies benefit someone like yourself?
- jedberg 10y agoPeople who buy housing just to rent out on AirBnB would find it more economical to rent out to a long term renter (because the licensing is actually less onerous), thereby increasing the rental supply and lowering rents.
- jonpaine 10y agoAm I misunderstanding you? SF's legendary rent control creates a clear incentive for landlords to use a service like Airbnb to continually rent at market rate (though lower occupancy rate) while maintaining control to allocate the unit as they see fit. Renting a unit in sf both freezes rental revenue and removes the owners control to reallocate the unit. Did you mean something else?
- jedberg 10y agoEven with rent control it's still better to be a landlord of a long term tenant than follow the licensing restrictions. The license 1) Costs money and 2) limits the number of days you can rent. #2 is the big issue. Even with rent control, at least you can rent the place out for the whole year. With the license you can only rent the place out for 90 days a year. You must live in the unit the other 275 days of the year. So your rent controlled rate would have to be 25% of market rate for the legal short term rental to make sense, and you'd have to live there when it isn't rented.
- tedmiston 10y ago> David Campos, a supervisor who has been harshly critical of Airbnb, called the ordinance a "modest piece of legislation," according to the San Francisco Chronicle, adding "If you are a rental car agency, you have to make sure the person that you rent that vehicle to has a license before you rent them a car. That is exactly what we are asking the short-term platforms to do here." This analogy is obnoxiously flawed. rental car agency:consumer != (airbnb:host or host:guest)
- epmatsw 10y agoGenuinely curious why the agency:consumer::host:guest is flawed. (agency|host) temporarily allows use of their property by (consumer|guest) in exchange for money.
- dkuebric 10y agoUnder your analogy, the host has to make sure the guest is licensed, which is different from the law, which is about the host.
- rahimnathwani 10y agoThe agency:consumer ~= airbnb:host analogy makes more sense.
- jhchen 10y agoDriving a car is a complex and potentially dangerous activity, hence the license. A license to rent a place to sleep makes no sense. Edit: Instead of responding to every single sub comment I will just add that car accidents kill 30,000 people a year. Whether or not you think AirBnB should be regulated, the analogy pairing their activity to the commonly fatal activity of driving is unambiguously on a different level. A more appropriate analogy is perhaps a fishing license.
- fizx 10y agoPlenty of things can go wrong with a place to sleep. Bedbugs, for example.
- notliketherest 10y agoI love to see individuals and companies step up and fight against the psychopaths that run San Francisco.
- youngButEager 10y ago100% agree. The "control them, tax them, make them lick our boots, what can they do?, they can't do anything about it" mentality is heavy in the SF city leadership. Believe it or not, some people -- lots of people, actually - are 1000% okay with that. Too many in SF, that's for sure. Campos wants: - to be seen as someone who helped the City make more money from the fines and registration requirents - to appease the vast majority of renters in San Francisco who feel that no owner has a right to their property, the City must be in control -- Campos' voting bloc consists of that group The problem with objectively dictatorial behavior from government is no one has the guts to stand up to them. EXCEPT AirBnB!!! GO AIRBNB !! Britain just told Merkel and Hollande (who are the real string-pullers in the EU) to scrap off and die. Tyrannical behavior from people "who tell you what to do and you can't do anything about it" usually ends badly for the perps. See Nicolae Ceausescu for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD-XNTVgDW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD-XNTVgDW0 Sometimes people who abuse their power do not lose it gracefully. Many of us are watching what becomes of Maduro in Venezuela. The entire population there is out of food and rioting and eating dogs and cats.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- good_sir_ant 10y agoMost tech grunts will never admit that the idea of 'central planning', or 'regulations', are flawed beyond benefit, as far as we yet are able to implement them, especially in the 'motherland'. When you we start shaking this idea that these restrictions actually benefit anybody besides the ones making the restrictions.
- holografix 10y agoCan't help but think of the obvious time and time again with the faux-sharing economy. Sharing is a pathetic use of neural linguistics, you're not sharing, your not doing anyone a kindness, you're making money and you're providing a service. Uber and Airbnb will be regulated legislative or through unions. Ask yourself just wtf are cabs so much more inefficient than Uber and hotels more expensive then Airbnb? Few drivers depend completely on Uber for their income, Airbnb is still on a legal gray zone. This won't last forever. Uber drivers will unionise, tenants who live around Airbnb hosts will pressure the government for legislation and so will hotel providers. Uber is pivoting to logistics. What's Airbnb doing? Wouldn't surprise me if they soon build their own hotel.
- mc32 10y agoMy recollection might be off, but I think the term was popularized by the tech press not so much the tech companies described as such. However, the argument can be made that the sharing, while not in the classical sense, does reduce the impact on resources through efficiencies. So in that sense, people are sharing resources (as in sharing a bus ride --you both pay) and making less impact on earth's resources. Small cab companies in that sense were more inefficient, among other things, because an idle car (one without a medallion) could be put to use to taxi people around. Same for AB&B. People arguably maximize the use of a house --by renting their spare rooms (the use case has morphed since inception, granted). I think you can see where this model, whatever it's called makes more efficient use of our resources.
- r00fus 10y agoTech press? Where do these outfits get their talking points? Hint: http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html?ref=ep http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html?ref=ep
- mc32 10y agoThey don't have to take it and run with it. Obviously the problem is with their editorial integrity. Never the less, we can look beyond the words and discuss the actual things.
- techtosser1 10y agoThey must be extremely dependent on these commercial operators listing multiple units, else they wouldn't be fighting this so hard. It kind of makes their whole "helping the middle class" shtick even more nauseating.
- abannin 10y agoKinda surprised that no one is debating jurisdiction here. Why federal and not state courts? Are federal judges more friendly to this type of case?
- wvenable 10y agoIsn't it federal law that they are using to defend against this?
- abannin 10y agoYes, but there is a tactical decision at play here. AirBnB seems to believe that it has a better chance of winning on privacy and user-generated content issues then state/local laws.
- youngButEager 10y agoGood point. And the Federal court may actually stipulate that by saying "this is not a matter of Constitutional rights -- it is merely a challenge to a local ordinance and must therefore be contested in that jurisdiction." AirBnB probably knew they'd lose locally, so either they thought "we'll end up appealing anyway, let's go right to the Feds" or "let's make a longshot stab at a 1st Amendment rights claim and avoid the local court." They stand to lose at either level, because the SCOTUS has already weighed in on "the local government took unlawful control over my real property" -- a rent-controlled NYC landlord's case was turned down by the Justices a couple years back from even being considered in the Supreme Court. And there are standing regulations already in place for hotels and motels. AirBnb doesn't have a chance here, really. The faux taxi services are somehow skating from being held to the bar for being illegal taxi services, but probably not for long.
- underbrowny 10y agoThis is the biggest problem of sharing economy. To solve this problem we have to make new system not to fight with established system.