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

Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

observer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 232 posts

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#131

Post by hysan »

542458 wrote: post #112
hysan wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you may have to sign something which says "that is it", waiving your right to sue anyone for anything more Isn't that quite different from an NDA though? With insurance, everything is documented and available for access in case you need to reference it at some later point in time. With an NDA, the settlement is effectively hidden from view and is much harder for you to legally discuss if you need to reference it at…

NDAs (aka confidentiality clauses) attached to settlements are extremely common - have you ever seen the phrase "settled for an undisclosed sum"? It's usually because of some sort of confidentiality clause. Here's some background on those, and why they're used: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/novembe... Re: your house example, the NDA linked in the article don't go that far. IANAL, but it's actua…

> It basically says ... and I agree not to talk about this payout"

That's not quite right. When I read the NDA, section 2 is what stuck out to me as an oddity that isn't standard in most settlement agreements. Specifically (emphasis mine):

> I acknowledge that the existence of the payment by Airbnb and this Airbnb Payment Agreement are confidential.

Most settlements make the amount paid a hidden number but doesn't prevent you from discussing that the settlement itself occurred. If Airbnb's NDA simply said that the amount paid wasn't to be discussed, then I'd agree that this would be a non-story. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. IANAL either, but the language used seems pretty cut and dry in the intent that the incident be kept under wraps.

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#132

Post by jwr »

mikeash wrote: post #41

What's going on here? The first half of the story sounds like routine corporate incompetency. Representatives don't read your stuff, can't be bothered to follow their own procedures, and screw you over. Unacceptable but, alas, fairly common when dealing with big companies. The NDA is where it goes off the rails. He's entitled to that money, so why would they try to put conditions on it? I'm sure they're not thrilled…

It's not incompetence. It's a deliberate negotiating tactic, designed to tire the opponent and force him to agree to suboptimal terms.

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#133

Post by will_brown »

tptacek wrote: post #126
542458 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: My apologies, I misunderstood what exploding meant in this context. My bad! --- I'm not really sure the term sheet is "exploding". If I'm reading it right, it basically says "I absolve AirBNB of any further responsibility, and I agree not to talk about this payout". That's pretty common for a whole bunch of reasons [1]. [1]: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/novembe...

"Exploding" refers to the fact that it expired in 24 hours.

"Exploding" the way you are referring to it really is a term related to startup funding, right?

The problem is startup funding != claims/dispute resolution/litigation.

In other words...exploading offers in funding don't have the same justification as deadlines to accept settlements. Moreover, settlement offers need deadlines because if they are not accepted the legal cost are exponentially increasing for both parties.

For example, I might try to settle a case the night before mediation and offer settlement that expires if not taken before mediation the next day, because that mediation might add $20k to my client's bill, and so an open ended settlement would allow the opposing party to force my client to incur $20k cost and then turn around and still take the deal.

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#134

Post by shados »

m-i-l wrote: post #122

Not defending Airbnb's behaviour, but this sort of thing happens outside of Airbnb too. I had some tenants (sons of a well known rock star) cause around £10K worth of damage to my flat in Shoreditch (plus around £5K in lost rent given the amount of time it took to repair) a few years back. In that case the letting agency I used was no help because they said it was a private matter between myself and the tenants, the…

With normal tenants, you gamble once every couple of months or years. With AirBNB, you roll the dice possibly every few days or more.

It's the same difference as owner occupancy vs renters, but taken to the next order of magnitude.

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#135

Post by xapata »

blackguardx wrote: post #129
m-i-l wrote: post #122

Not defending Airbnb's behaviour, but this sort of thing happens outside of Airbnb too. I had some tenants (sons of a well known rock star) cause around £10K worth of damage to my flat in Shoreditch (plus around £5K in lost rent given the amount of time it took to repair) a few years back. In that case the letting agency I used was no help because they said it was a private matter between myself and the tenants, the…

How did you resolve it? Did you just eat the loss? In the US, the best recourse would probably be to sue or file a police report for destruction of property. Neither of those are great options, but they might end up being arrested depending on the municipality.

File a police report, then go to small claims court. I think the limit for small claims is $7k, but it might be higher now.

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#136

Post by javajosh »

dang wrote: post #72
jsiegz wrote: post #29

Bribes are generally illegal. This should be "compensates," not "bribes." "Bribes" is just hyperbole. This is standard practice for a lot of businesses in a similar space.

We put quotes around that word in the title. I'll add an explanation here in a bit. Edit: ok, here's an explanation. We put quotes around "bribes" because that's the tiniest intervention I can think of that still addresses your concern. Why so tiny? That takes a while to explain, so read on if you want to understand how we approach this. The title breaks the HN guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines…

I say this as a happy AirBnB host and guest: the article captures the feelings of powerlessness that people often feel when private companies attempt to shirk their obligations, and to do so in a way that is particularly infuriating, insensitive, and manipulative. The proper recourse is legal, but the legal system is prohibitively expensive for anyone who isn't worth tens of millions. So, name and shame it is!

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#137

Post by thedarkginger »

whack wrote: post #119

I have a friend who literally had the exact same experience a week ago. She rented her apartment to a guy for one night, and he proceeded to have a massive party filled with drugs, prostitutes, and God knows what else. Her apartment was subsequently degraded and destroyed beyond all recognition. Thus far, Airbnb's response to her has been extremely non-reassuring. Hopefully they will do more in the coming week and re…

It's kind of crazy. People really care about their homes, right? So when bad things happen, posting photos like these confirm potential hosts' worst fears about having their place on AirBNB.

I'm surprised that they don't go out of their way to help their hosts (i.e. buying things online was unfamiliar for users, so Amazon typically is pro-consumer any time there is a dispute and refunds your money immediately, in my experience).

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#138

Post by sarreph »

> This was all too reminiscent of the NDA Tesla asked customers to sign last year after a defect was discovered, a request that was deemed “unacceptable” by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (which issued the warning about the defects).

How are the biggest and trendiest companies getting away with this kind of despicable behaviour? The lack of regulation in intervention here is especially troubling.

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#139

Post by mcguire »

kazinator wrote: post #60
mikeash wrote: post #41

What's going on here? The first half of the story sounds like routine corporate incompetency. Representatives don't read your stuff, can't be bothered to follow their own procedures, and screw you over. Unacceptable but, alas, fairly common when dealing with big companies. The NDA is where it goes off the rails. He's entitled to that money, so why would they try to put conditions on it? I'm sure they're not thrilled…

It's not unusual for settlements to have conditions attached, which makes this NDA thing somewhat less outlandish than it seems at first. For instance, if you settle with an insurance company after a car accident, you may have to sign something which says "that is it", waiving your right to sue anyone for anything more. If the person is properly compensated 100%, but keeps talking, it can be argued that their materia…

Does AirBNB routinely require non-disclosures for claims against its host guarantee?

Re: Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment

#140

Post by wavefunction »

BeetleB wrote: post #128
Marazan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, if some chooses to live next to a hotel then that's there choice. If a unlicensed hotel opens next to them (i.e. an airbnb rental) then they have been impinged on.

This will normally be covered by local laws or HOAs. It makes sense for neighbors to go after the person, but not to go after AirBnB.

AirBnB profits from illegal activity and they have deep pockets for a settlement _and_ want to avoid negative publicity which leads to explicit regulation of STRs. It makes a lot of sense.
Post reply on HN