Court Not Impressed By Airbnb's Argument Against The City Of San Francisco
from the well,-that's-a-problem dept
Earlier this year, we noted that a bunch of cities were looking to make Airbnb liable for residents in those cities using the platform without following certain city rules. As we noted at the time, this seemed to pretty clearly violate Section 230 of the CDA, which says that platforms cannot be liable for the actions of their users. San Francisco went ahead with such a law anyway, even though it tried to rework it at the last minute to deal with Airbnb's points on why it was illegal. The case ended up in court either way -- and unfortunately, the initial ruling has sided with San Francisco over Airbnb.Now, I know that for a variety of reasons, there are people who just flat out hate Airbnb and think that it's somehow bad or problematic for cities or rental prices or whatever. I don't think the data supports this, but either way, you should be concerned about the results here. This isn't about whether or not Airbnb is "good" or "bad" for cities. It's about a fundamental principle on which the internet operates -- which has allowed the internet to grow and to thrive, and which has protected free speech on the internet, by not making platforms magically liable for what users say or do. But the court here basically doesn't care about all of that.
The judge tries to carefully parse things out to argue that under this law, Airbnb isn't liable for its users' actions, but its own:
As the text and plain meaning of the Ordinance demonstrate, it in no way treats plaintiffs as the publishers or speakers of the rental listings provided by hosts. It does not regulate what can or cannot be said or posted in the listings. It creates no obligation on plaintiffs’ part to monitor, edit, withdraw or block the content supplied by hosts. To the contrary, as San Francisco has emphasized in its briefs and at oral argument, plaintiffs are perfectly free to publish any listing they get from a host and to collect fees for doing so -- whether the unit is lawfully registered or not -- without threat of prosecution or penalty under the Ordinance.... The Ordinance holds plaintiffs liable only for their own conduct, namely for providing, and collecting a fee for, Booking Services in connection with an unregistered unit.But that misunderstands both the nature of the platform and the nature of Section 230. First of all, the law absolutely creates an obligation on Airbnb to monitor, withdraw or block the content supplied by hosts -- because if they do not, then they will face significant liability. The idea that it's only targeting Airbnb's "conduct" of booking an unregistered unit is simply incorrect. The platform allows anyone to put up any unit. Not Airbnb. Not only does this new regulation falsely attribute to Airbnb the actions of its users, this judge does too. That's a problem.
We've written a lot about Section 230 over the years, and unfortunately in the last few months a bunch of cases have chipped away at these important protections. In each case, the courts seem to think that the situation in front of them is somehow unique and Section 230 shouldn't apply. Considering how important Section 230 has been to the internet as a whole and the protection of free speech, we should be very, very concerned about so many of these cases picking apart the law and adding serious liability. It won't end well. Hopefully Airbnb appeals this... and the 9th Circuit doesn't muck it up.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cda 230, intermediary liability, liability, san francisco, section 230
Companies: airbnb
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm all for essentially blanket immunity under Section 230 for community content, but AirBNB is something else entirely. It's not just some forum where people can post rental listings, which is what Section 230 was written for because it's the sort of thing that was around when the CDA was written.
AirBNB is a booking agency. Every rental that takes place, takes place through AirBNB's infrastructure, with AirBNB taking a cut of the deal. To say Section 230 applies here is to create all sorts of perverse incentives, because if you can create a site to help people sell illegal things, get a cut of each sale, and then claim immunity and operate with impunity once people start using it for much more serious crime, what's to stop someone from doing exactly that?
Sorry, but the only ruling that makes any sense is that AirBNB stops being a simple "content platform" when it becomes a business partner. And I don't see that as "chipping away at Section 230 protections" in the slightest, because it doesn't do anything at all to harm the sites that Section 230 was intended to protect. All it does is properly clarify the boundaries of Section 230 WRT a category of sites that weren't a thing back when the CDA was passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's also missing from the conversation is home purchases solely for the intent of stashing wealth. Look to Vancouver B.C. as an example or my neighbor from across the street who does not live in the property yet rents out the rooms.
My neighbor collects the mail each day, but doesn't enter the home, doesn't sleep in the home. From a government view it appears they live in the home as they collect the mail, but government isn't there to witness they do not stay in the home. This is called tax dodging and AirBnB is the enabler...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ask Ross Ulbricht that question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not fair. There is no question that, unlike Ross Ulbricht and the drug dealers use his website, that either Airbnb or it's users have violated federal laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, if San Francisco informed AirBNB that a particular listing was unregistered and AirBNB did nothing, I'd totally agree that they should be liable. However, I don't know if it should be AirBNB's responsibility to verify that every listing complies with every local law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the state doesnt regulate me selling my guitar. i can use any number of sites that will allow me to list it either free of charge or for a small fee. But they dont focus on selling only guitars so if someone decides to advertise hooker and blow parties on the go, they are protected by section 230.
airbnb does not have any other function though. since motels and hotels are regulated, and this is the sole purpose of airbnb, it too should fall under the same regulations as motel 6. since i could be advertising a place for rent that included hooker and blow parties- airbnb would have section 230 protections against the hooker and blow party part... but they are still functioning in their one single design of connecting people looking to rent their space with people looking to rent spaces and in that specific function, they would not qualify for 230 protections.
course thats just my own personal viewpoint and im no laywer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that Airbnb is unwilling to do so is simply a reflection of the fact that 80% of its SF listings are illegal. The units are not primary residences, as the law Airbnb wrote requires, or they belong to tenants who are renting to tourists without the property owners' permission.
While there are few objections to people renting spare rooms, it's the wholesale conversion of dwelling units to full-time tourist accommodations that's problematic. And it's those units Airbnb clings to so strenuously because they're the most lucrative. Take them away in the major markets and Airbnb's $30 billion valuation evaporates.
As Judge Donato noted, neither the First Amendment nor the CDA provide a safe harbor for facilitating illegal transactions, which is the foundation of Airbnb's business model. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How? I don't see anything at https://shorttermrentals.sfgov.org/ for verifying a permit. AirBNB is asking for permit numbers now according to https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/871/san-francisco--ca but there doesn't seem to be anything stopping someone from entering a fraudulent permit number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, this is a basic idea I've been proposing for a while now:
Eliminate slap-on-the-wrist fines that can be written off as the cost of doing business, and so many things start to fix themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AirBnB isn't just a chat board or listing site, it's a business partner, a money handler, and an integral (and unavoidable) part of every transaction. There is no section 230 here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]