Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 403 posts

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#71

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #64
yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB (except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it). From 803(b): (b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:... (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. Section 804 is what you quoted.) (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quart…

> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below. > Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family hous…

I'm pretty sure you are misreading.

(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- (1)[...everything you quoted...], or (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.

Since (2) applies to AirBnB, it doesn't matter if (1) does because the exception is (1) || (2).

Volokh (a very good law blog) has blogged on this topic a while back, also useful to read: http://volokh.com/2012/02/08/does-the-right-to-choose-a-room... http://volokh.com/2010/11/05/federal-government-acknowledges...

Apparently people also have a constitutional right to choose "intimate associations", which includes who you live with. However, you can't advertise that you'll do this.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#72

Post by dragonwriter »

jasode wrote: post #67
dragonwriter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below. > Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family hous…

>The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception. I don't think it would be. The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition to help the law pin down properties that are "commercial". In other words, if you're paying the high price of contracting a broker, you're 99.99% likely not to be renting out a perso…

> The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition

No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, and applies to any use of any rental (or sale) services of a broker, agent, or person in the business of renting (or selling) real estate in support of a discriminatory rental, after December 31, 1969.

Its only legal (since 1970) under the federal fair housing act to discriminate, even as a homeowner renting their own home, if the rental is arranged without the use of some commercial rental-arrangement service.

(And even them it may be illegal under state fair housing laws.)

> The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

That's certainly the argument a discriminating owner using AirBnB (or possible AirBnB themselves) would try to make, but AirBnB's financial and substantive involvement in the transaction is very different than that of a hands-off listing service like a newspaper classified section, so I don't think that argument would fly. If AirBnB actually acted like a newspaper classified service, that argument might be valid, but that's not what AirBnB does (if we were talking, instead, about Craigslist, that would be a good argument.)

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#73

Post by dragonwriter »

jasode wrote: post #12

>Airbnb said it would also accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval. Maybe I'm naive but it seems like that policy would be perceived by hosts as extremely hostile. Homeowners have both a financial and emotional vested interest in their homes so letting strangers book it without a cursory check isn't going to work. Having no checks would work for real es…

> In other words, if a homeowner has a spare bedroom across the hall from her 13-year-old son's room, and doesn't want to rent to transgender, black, or 65-year-old guests, it is legal for her to discriminate on those attributes.

But its not legal to use a brokering service to arrange the rental if you discriminate, so there goes AirBnB for that use.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#74

Post by dragonwriter »

draugadrotten wrote: post #15

Coming up next: AirBnB adopts rules in effort to fight discrimination OF its hosts. Some guests may avoid to stay with hosts of certain life styles, gender, race or religion. This discrimination must be stopped.

> The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

Unlike discrimination by hosts against renters, discrimination by renters against hosts doesn't seem to be a violation of the fair housing laws of either the United States or any State, so, at least in the US, is less likely to be a legal compliance issue to which their may be liability attached.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#75

Post by runako »

jasode wrote: post #67
dragonwriter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below. > Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family hous…

>The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception. I don't think it would be. The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition to help the law pin down properties that are "commercial". In other words, if you're paying the high price of contracting a broker, you're 99.99% likely not to be renting out a perso…

>homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

Except that AirBnB:

- collects money and acts as a financial intermediary

- provides some measure of insurance to both sides of the transaction

- provides some measure of support before/during/after a stay

- more?

Basically, it's nothing like a newspaper classified.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #71
dragonwriter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below. > Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family hous…

I'm pretty sure you are misreading. (b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- (1)[...everything you quoted...], or (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence. Since (2) a…

> I'm pretty sure you are misreading.

I'm pretty sure I'm not, at least in the way you are suggesting.

> Since (2) applies to AirBnB

(As noted previously, neither 1 nor 2 applies to many uses of AirBnB, where the person offering the rental isn't the property owner but is instead a tenant; but, that aside...)

I was actually responding to your suggestion that (1) applied to AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to a homeowner renting their home out via AirBnB; I was not responding to your argument that (2) applies to a AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to rentals of units or rooms by owners of homes for multiple (but not more than four) families living independently while the owner occupies some part of it (which, again, doesn't apply to lots of AirBnB rentals, including by-owner rentals.)

There are, I will acknowledge, a subset of AirBnB transactions which would fall within the exception of (2) from federal fair housing laws (which doesn't, actually, mean they'd be legal everywhere in the US; many states have much substantially narrower exceptions to state fair housing rules than exist in federal fair housing law.)

> Volokh (a very good law blog)

Volokh is probably the best right-libertarian law blog there is, yes.

> has blogged on this topic a while back

Maybe, but neither of the links you provide are "on this topic", (to wit, the legality of discriminatory renting via a commercial intermediary like AirBnB.) Both are regarding discriminatory listings via hands-off listing venues, which is a very different issue.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#77

Post by dragonwriter »

ekianjo wrote: post #45
southphillyman wrote: post #30

I'm confused by the responses in here so far. How does discriminating based on race, gender, age, etc guarantee that your property will not be damaged? If you want the access and business that using AirBnb's platform provides then you need to adhere to their rules. Pretty simple. If that's a problem use craigslist or some other service so you can use whatever prejudices you have to screen guests.

AirBnB places are not hotels. In the end as an Owner you should be free to select whoever you accept, just like you are free to decorate your place the way you wish. It's down to personal preference because it's the Owner's place in the end.

> AirBnB places are not hotels.

Often, they are exactly illegal hotels.

> In the end as an Owner you should be free to select whoever you accept

You generally aren't legally in the US, with very narrow exceptions, especially if you have a commercial service involved with you in arranging the rental. AirBnB doesn't make the laws, but they are bound by them, and are visible enough that simply ignoring them may no longer be tenable.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#78

Post by yummyfajitas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #76
yummyfajitas wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure you are misreading. (b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- (1)[...everything you quoted...], or (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence. Since (2) a…

> I'm pretty sure you are misreading. I'm pretty sure I'm not, at least in the way you are suggesting. > Since (2) applies to AirBnB (As noted previously, neither 1 nor 2 applies to many uses of AirBnB, where the person offering the rental isn't the property owner but is instead a tenant; but, that aside...) I was actually responding to your suggestion that (1) applied to AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to a homeowner…

I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone...".

Maybe, but neither of the links you provide are "on this topic", (to wit, the legality of discriminatory renting via a commercial intermediary like AirBnB.) Both are regarding discriminatory listings via hands-off listing venues, which is a very different issue.

The point is the referenced constitutional right to "intimate associations", and you have not established that the use of AirBnB somehow nullifies this constitutional right.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#79

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #78
dragonwriter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty sure you are misreading. I'm pretty sure I'm not, at least in the way you are suggesting. > Since (2) applies to AirBnB (As noted previously, neither 1 nor 2 applies to many uses of AirBnB, where the person offering the rental isn't the property owner but is instead a tenant; but, that aside...) I was actually responding to your suggestion that (1) applied to AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to a homeowner…

I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone...". Maybe, but neither of the links you provide are "on this topic", (to wit, the legality of discriminatory renting via a commercial intermediary like AirBnB…

> I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB,

If you are renting your home (and not merely some portion of it), you aren't occupying at the time you are renting rooms or units in it, so (2) doesn't apply; (1) might, were it not for the limitations in (1). There would be no point in quoting (1) at all unless you intended to invoke it, and your hypothetical doesn't make sense unless you intended to invoke both the portion of (1) you quoted and (2).

> The point is the referenced constitutional right to "intimate associations",

The existence of that right is not what is in controversy here; whether it extends to the use of an actively-involved commercial intermediary like AirBnB, is. Volokh's posts that you referenced are not germane to the point actually in controversy.

> and you have not established that the use of AirBnB somehow nullifies this constitutional right.

And you haven't established that it extends to the situation at issue; that's the point in controversy. But what either of us has or has not established is irrelevant to the point that the Volokh Conspiracy posts you referenced aren't even relevant to the point in controversy.

Re: Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

#80

Post by jasode »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
jasode wrote: post #12

>Airbnb said it would also accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval. Maybe I'm naive but it seems like that policy would be perceived by hosts as extremely hostile. Homeowners have both a financial and emotional vested interest in their homes so letting strangers book it without a cursory check isn't going to work. Having no checks would work for real es…

> In other words, if a homeowner has a spare bedroom across the hall from her 13-year-old son's room, and doesn't want to rent to transgender, black, or 65-year-old guests, it is legal for her to discriminate on those attributes. But its not legal to use a brokering service to arrange the rental if you discriminate, so there goes AirBnB for that use.

>But its not legal to use a brokering service to arrange the rental if you discriminate, so there goes AirBnB for that use.

Well, since Airbnb has been around for 8 years and no states' attorney generals nor courts have ruled Airbnb to definitively be a "broker", _why_ would a homeowner think she's breaking any anti-discrimination laws when screening prospective renters for her spare bedroom?

I don't know about Airbnb's status in other countries but as far as the USA goes, that's the current situation. (There's one lawsuit filed by a property management in NYC to reclassify Airbnb as a "broker" but that's working its way through the court system and unresolved.)

Also, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say Airbnb changes some things to avoid the "broker" label -- or -- the states definitively rule that they don't meet the definition of "broker". If so, this outcome still wouldn't be realistic: "Well, Ms Smith's loft discriminates against black people but we're all ok with it now because Airbnb got a favorable ruling that they are not a broker."

Attacking the "broker" angle is a red herring. Even if Airbnb loses the broker reclassification, another service that let people discriminate on exactly who stays in their spare bedroom would fill the void. The underlying discrimination remains.

Post reply on HN