HomeAway.com, Inc.; Airbnb, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica – Ninth Circuit Rules Cities May Regulate Short-Term Hosting Platforms

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Santa Monica is permitted to regulate hosting platforms, which it found “had negatively impacted the quality and character of its neighborhoods by bringing commercial activity and removing residential housing stock from the market at a time when California is already suffering from severe housing shortages”.

Santa Monica’s ordinance allowed licensed “home-sharing” but prohibited all other short-term rentals of 30 days or fewer. It requires platforms to (1) collect and remit “Transient Occupancy Taxes”, (2) disclose certain listing and booking information regularly, (3) refrain from completing any booking transaction for properties not licensed and listed on the City’s registry, and (4) refrain from collecting or receiving a fee for facilitating or providing services ancillary to a vacation rental or unregistered home-share. Platforms who comply receive safe harbor. (A similar safe harbor provision in San Francisco’s short-term rental ordinance led to settlement of a similar lawsuit in the Northern District of California. Here, the district court granted Santa Monica’s motion to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action under federal law, including the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the First Amendment.

The CDA provides internet companies with immunity from certain claims in furtherance of its stated policy to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services, providing immunity to cases where “(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider”. The hosting platforms argued that the ordinance required them to monitor and remove third party content, in violate of the CDA. The Ninth Circuit, however, found that the ordinance did not try to treat them as publishers. It merely prohibits processing transactions for unregistered properties.

The hosting platforms also argued that they were protected by the First Amendment: even if the plain language of the Ordinance only reaches “conduct” (the booking of unlicensed properties), it effectively imposes a “content-based financial burden” on commercial speech and is thus subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The district court, however, found that the regulation affected conduct that lacked a “significant expressive element”, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.


AIMCO Sues Airbnb Over Encouraging Lease Violations

airbnb logo

The Wall Street Journal reports that Apartment Investment & Management Co. (AIMCO) is suing Airbnb, alleging that Airbnb is helping their tenants breach their leases.

According to AIMCO, “It is not acceptable to us that Airbnb actively promotes and profits from deliberate breaches of our leases, and does so in utter disregard of the disrespectful and unsafe situations created for our full-time residents and their families”.

Airbnb’s response, utterly devoid of histrionics, championed the voice of their subjugated “hosts”, speaking truth to power, despite no ascertainable pecuniary interest in sticking its neck out, humbly urging that, “This attack on the middle class by powerful interests is wholly without merit”.


Airbnb Sues San Francisco over Recent Revision to “Airbnb Law”


Airbnb has filed a lawsuit against San Francisco in Federal District Court, seeking to invalidate the recent expansion of enforcement tools to regulate short-term residential rental listings. Ordinance 104-16 now requires hosting platforms to verify that a residential unit is on the City registry prior to listing and to requires them to respond to requests for information from the City. Violations can lead to civil penalties of $1,000 per day, as well as certain criminal penalties.

Airbnb alleges that the new ordinance violates its rights under the Communications Decency Act, which “expressly preempts state and local laws that treat a website ‘as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider’,” urging that, “instead of targeting speech, the City instead could simply enforce its existing short-term rental law directly against hosts who violate it”.

However, Airbnb also alleges that the new law violates its rights under the First Amendment, insisting that it is “a content-based restriction on advertising rental listings, which is speech”. Whether or not the new ordinance will survive judicial review as a constitutional economic regulation, it does seem inconsistent to advance a First Amendment argument while also disclaiming that listings are speech. And, in any event, simply verifying that a host has complied with the “Airbnb law” and obtained a listing number does not quite make the list of onerous restraints on speech. The Federal District Court also recently upheld the City’s buyout legislation, requiring a landlord to disclose certain rights to tenants concerning “buyout agreements” (offering money for the vacating of a rental unit) prior to having the discussion, against a constitutional challenge for restrictions on speech.


San Francisco Legislative Update for 2016: Enhancing Enforcement Provisions for “Airbnb Law” with New Obligations for Hosting Platforms


San Francisco will now require hosting platforms to verify that a residential unit is on the City registry prior to listing and to require them to respond to requests for information from the City.

Ordinance 104-16 represents another effort in the City’s ongoing “project” of striking a balance that allows short term listings without allowing abusive practices that siphon long-term residential housing stock. The Board of Supervisors specifically states that the intent of the ordinance is not to punish short-term rental hosts who are trying to lawfully comply with San Francisco’s short term rental laws, but rather to bring more short term rentals into compliance. It goes on to self-consciously note that the registration process has been difficult to navigate, directing the Office of Short-Term Rentals to make recommendations on how the City can improve the process. Perhaps the law will need to be revised again in the future, but that’s some customer service in the meantime.

You can read the full text of Ordinance 104-16 here.


InsideAirbnb.com “Adds Data to the Debate” in Exploring the Effect of Airbnb on Neighborhoods


After spending $8 million dollars to defeat of San Francisco’s Proposition F, with some anticipating it will spend as much as $100 million next year to fight similar ballot measures, Airbnb is already in the process of organizing “grassroots lobbyists”, mobilizing its own users to work as advocates. Airbnb is planning on funding these “city-based guilds”, as well as providing them with Airbnb staff support, in an effort to fight similar legislation in other cities.

Meanwhile, the website InsideAirbnb.com has been “adding data to the debate”, by providing information, not only on the number of listings in a particular city, but also on whether the listing is for a single room or an entire rental unit. And this distinction is important where Airbnb and other hosting platforms have diverted a significant portion of housing units, compared to what has been made available to renters in recent years.


SAN FRANCISCO LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (2015): Expansion of Enforcement for Short Term Rental Violations


San Francisco has amended its “Airbnb law” to expand the definition of Interested Parties who may enforce the law through a private right of action. (This now includes permanent residents living within 100 feet of the listing.) It also fleshes out some of the administrative tools required to regulate short term listings, including directing the mayor to create an Office of Short-Term Residential Rental Administration and Enforcement.

You can read the full text of Ordinance 130-15 here.


SFTravel and Airbnb Alliance

SF bus times

San Francisco Business Times reports on Airbnb formalizing a tourism partnership with SFTravel – the San Francisco Travel Association. Airbnb aims to enhance its users’ ability to “experience San Francisco like a local”, directing visitors to more conventionally residential neighborhoods and arming local merchants in those neighborhoods with “tourism tool kits”.

The Business Times contrasts Airbnb’s normalized relationship with the tourism trade association with the uncertainty of hosting platform regulations this November, noting a recent Re/code article reporting Airbnb’s estimate that San Francisco will lose $58 million in tax revenue over the next decade if the ballot measure is successful in slightly reducing the number of allowable hosted days per year.


Flatbook: Airbnb of Sublets?


Curbed reports on Flatbook, a company that is trying to become the “Airbnb of subletting” by “creating a network of apartments under a central company”, which would fill a space, in an industry dominated by Airbnb, for regular sublets and a temporary stays for travelers. That is, of course, unless your Airbnb guest keeps reserving your apartment, in which case Airbnb is the Airbnb of subletting.


Airbnb Amendment Stalls with Supervisors; Headed to Voters

airbnb logo

The two competing bids to strengthen San Francisco’s existing Airbnb law came before the Board of Supervisors last week for a vote. Seeking a “scalpel” instead of a “sledgehammer”, the Board decided to postpone the vote for a month. Meanwhile, another effort to augment the existing law is headed to voters this November. Among other changes, the ballot measure would actually allow short term rentals in excess of the current limit of 90 days per year, as long as the host obtains a conditional use permit to operate an actual“bed and breakfast”. (Presumably, inflatable furniture would still be allowed.)

At the State level, Senator McGuire has not been successful in advancing the “Thriving Communities and Sharing Economy Act”, which would impose burdens on hosting platforms while empowering cities to enforce their short term rental laws, but he is planning to try again next year.