> He emailed Airbnb's trust and safety team that night. Nothing.
> Five more days passed, correspondence shows, without Airbnb assigning a dedicated person to his case. Then on March 23, Airbnb wrote Grewal with what amounted to a shrug.
5 days and then a "shrug"? Wow. That's appalling as far as Customer Service goes. I haven't listed on, or rented from AirBnB. But is this kind of customer service normal or is the incident quoted above an outlier? Even if they intended to respond with a shrug, why did it take 5 DAYS for a response??
Has AirBnB become so big that, like Craiglist, they don't give a Sh*t anymore to the issues their users / customers face because they know that they've captured huge chunk of the market and know that their users ain't going anywhere else anytime soon?
The problem is that Grewal, the owner of the house that was illegally sublet, isn't and never was Airbnb's customer in any sense of the word. There's no incentive to solve his problem and take down the listing. In fact, the incentives run the other way because the real Airbnb customer -- Grewal's tenants -- are generating revenue for the site.
It would be very interesting if one of these municipalities changed their ordinance to make the booking agent (Airbnb, VRBO, etc) liable for any violation. And $20,000 per violation in Miami Beach does seem ridiculously excessive.
Imagine it was a newspaper classified ad in your newspaper that someone has paid for all week and someone else phoned up asking you not to reprint it tomorrow.
That said, there is precedent for third-parties successfully making takedown requests on content. I think most newspapers would agree to take down an ad if it was proven to sell illegal services or goods.
Man, the more I read stories like this about AirBnB the more I want them to fail. People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason. Beyond that though, what I despise is that AirBnB seems to reap all the profits and accept none of the blame. They fought to avoid paying taxes and whined when they lost, they refuse to take down listings when presented with evidence of them being illegal, they purposefully make complying with authorities difficult, they got their start by effectively breaking the terms of agreement on craigslist and spamming people like crazy to kickstart traffic to their site.
I love the idea of sharing homes. I just hate how AirBnB is doing it, and the more I read about them (obviously the media is writing articles to get clicks, so I'm sure it's somewhat biased) the more I think we'd be better off without them.
> Beyond that though, what I despise is that AirBnB seems to reap all the profits and accept none of the blame.
I dunno; it seems to me that in these cases, the people who are really to blame are the "tenants" who are actually breaking both laws and rental agreements.
I'm puzzled as to why the property owners aren't suing them to recover all the money they lost. I mean, yeah, lawsuits cost money, too, but when you're talking a $20k fine, I would imagine there's at least a good chance of recovering more than you pay...and it didn't sound like any of the mentioned owners were attempting to do anything to the bad-faith tenants.
I totally agree that AirBnB has some serious legal issues looming in its future in most if not all of the jurisdictions it operates in, but I honestly don't see these particular issues as being representative of them.
Because these tenants have no money. If they did, they'd likely be buying properties and listing them instead of doing these illegal sublets. The landlords in the area will likely drastically increase the rental deposit (unless it's limited by state or local law to some multiple of the monthly rent). That's the only real security against a tenant.
I'm puzzled as to why the property owners aren't suing them to recover all the money they lost. I mean, yeah, lawsuits cost money, too, but when you're talking a $20k fine, I would imagine there's at least a good chance of recovering more than you pay...and it didn't sound like any of the mentioned owners were attempting to do anything to the bad-faith tenants.
It sounds like you have never been a landlord. It's a five step process that takes at least two months just to evict someone in my landlord friendly state. I've heard it's worse in many other states. After that, it's possible to sue someone but that costs money and time and even after you do win it can take years to actually get your money and go through garnishment procedures once you track down their income. It's seldom worth the effort.
Yes most of the fault lies with AirBnb but being a distant landlord without a local property manager is crazy anyway. I sold my properties because the expense of getting a property manager or the hassle of managing it myself from across town wasn't worth it.
The lack of a property manager also struck me as crazy and I've never been a landlord. Plenty of rentals have gotten trashed and city fines accrued long before airbnb existed. Doesn't sound like this stuff happened overnight.
So, it seems that regulations governing the relationship between the landlord and tenants is the real problem here. If it was easier to recover money from the tenants, and kick them off the property, this would not be a problem.
Given a choice between protecting the rights of the tenants and protecting the rights of the landlord, I think we should be very careful about leaning on the side of the tenants and I'm saying that as a former landlord. The landlord may lose money but the tenant could be homeless and living in unsafe conditions if you veer too much in the landlord's favor.
As far as making it easier to recover money. Since it is just another civil case, it would take a complete overhaul of civil court.
Here's the deal: Tenants have rights because it's extremely easy for slumlords to take advantage of tenants - the power is completely in the landlord's hands without regulations. Poor tenant protections often leads to very serious negative externalities to society as a whole. History is filled with examples.
Unfortunately, tenants do take advantage of landlord-tenant laws sometimes, and that is terrible. Savvy swindlers can use the system to their advantage.
Being hard to recover money from individuals has absolutely nothing to do with landlord-tenant law and everything to do with the fact most individual people don't have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around to pay legal judgements. You'd have these sorts of issues anytime you sue someone else for anything. Best case scenario is that the person who you are suing has the proper liability insurance that will pay the judgement for them. (Liability is included with homeowners insurance and renters insurance but doesn't usually cover intentional actions)
I'm sure many of them will try to sue later on but that's not an overnight process, it can take years for a lawsuit to make it's way through court. Plus the property owners don't even fully know what their full losses are yet, it's way too soon, the dust hasn't settled. $20,000 is too much for small claims court so it's going to be a big production. Furthermore, these scumbags are the type of people to say "LOL" to a legal judgement instead of paying it. That means more time in court to get wage and bank account garnishments (if they are even working). If they don't have the $20,000+ or a well paying job or assets then the judgement is worth as much as the paper it is written on, you can't get blood from a stone. If you get a wage garnishment you may collect your $20,000 in 10 years if you're lucky.
(Ignoring the fact it's a several months process to even evict a tenant in many states in the first place.)
You can't let AirBnB off the hook here, they have the moral, if not legal, responsibility to prevent the most egregious abuses of their platform.
People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason
I love this quote:
Which is funnier: tech bros innovating their way to public transit, or bitcoin folks slowly reinventing financial regulation?
AirBnB, of course, is on a similar path.
I'm with you though, Uber, AirBnB, both seem to be good new age examples of the business strategy privatize the gains, socialize the risk/losses. Usually the company passes the taxpayer the bill; here, instead, a new patsy has been found.
Yep. Doing this five meters away from my front door, where my house and neighbors share a hallway. The carpet outside is covered in barbecue oil from a guest lugging a barbecue to the rooftop. We've had multiple drunk people try and break into the house. We've had a rooftop party with a couple of hundred teenagers. The owner is absentee and doesn't care, Airbnb won't even help you find the listing when you know the address (exactly like the article).
Ultimately it's our time and the police's time that handled things (and the taxpayer), while Airbnb reap the profits.
> Man, the more I read stories like this about AirBnB the more I want them to fail. People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason.
Frankly, I feel the same about every single one of the prominent "sharing economy" / "gig economy" companies. Uber/Lyft and AirBnB just seem to be the worst of them because they're the most visible of the visible. All of them appear to delight in exploiting the fact that enforcement of codes and rules isn't (and can't be) 100% universal so it's a "go under the radar until caught" model.
Meanwhile, the rest of us get to live with the obnoxiousness with no effective way to push back. Uber/Lyft "drivers" seem to have zero recognition of traffic laws (stopping in a bus lane during rush hour is practically a given these days), AirBnB "hosts" look at property rental rules as an irritating nuisance that impedes their quick buck. Even food companies like DoorDash flout labor laws and "freshly-prepared meals to your door" companies seem to think that commercial food handling rules are just dumb.
I get that lots of people love having the conveniences of life available at the tap of an icon--I do, too, even though I flatly refuse to use any of those services above--but, damn, couldn't we do it while also being considerate of those around us?
> All of them appear to delight in exploiting the fact that enforcement of codes and rules isn't (and can't be) 100% universal so it's a "go under the radar until caught" model.
This is true, but in some ways I think it's been a good shock to the system. For example, I think taxi regulation is being rethought and that wouldn't have happened without Uber.
I'm interested to hear more about how Uber behaviour is inconsiderate. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the company itself - but the experience itself seems to be all round good.
In the U.K. the drivers need to be registered for private hire and pay the appropriate insurance. In my experience the drivers abide by the law, are friendly and have nice clean cars. The service itself is miles better than traditional minicabs or black cabs. And it's cheaper too.
As far as I can tell, it's just generally a better taxi service and nobody is getting hurt (though I welcome insights on where that's wrong).
Having discussed it with black cab drivers, the best they've come up with (other than the destruction of their market) is that the uber drivers register in London and then drive in the other parts of the country. Apparently that's bad somehow, but I'm not sure why.
> I'm interested to hear more about how Uber behaviour is inconsiderate.
Certainly, and I think I can sum up why you and I have different experiences in another quote:
> In the U.K.
Your government didn't bend to the "but they're just shaaaaaaring so being licensed is haaaaard" bullshit that many governments here did. (Austin, Texas tried to pull it off and the Legislature of the State of Texas smacked them, hard.)
I live in Seattle. The vast majority of Uber (and Lyft) drivers here are on the "UberX" platform so they're virtually unlicensed--except for a basic city permit and a regular driving license--and have no identifying markings except for a standard vehicle license plate. This makes complaining to any regulatory agency about them problematic and while their behavior in traffic is illegal, it is also difficult for traffic police to be everywhere to write the myriad of citations that could result.
Uber/Lyft drivers know this and the minuscule risk of getting caught is vastly outweighed by getting a crappy rating by picking up a passenger a few feet away in a loading zone versus right in the middle of the bus stop where the passenger has dropped the pickup pin.
That's just one of my huge heap of complaints about how the "ridesharing" drivers actually pilot their vehicles. Making a U-turn in the middle of traffic to pick up a fare that's just popped up on their screen is another. But it really gets my goat how they use bus lanes and bus stops as their own private pickup and drop off areas because that one person in that one car is stopping the 40 of us on the damn bus from getting where we need to go. And Uber/Lyft drivers are almost always the ones doing it. I've very rarely seen a liveried taxicab act like that.
Maybe taxicabs do actually drive as bad or worse as "ridesharing" drivers do. Maybe the don't-call-them-taxis are just more plentiful so they're more visible. I don't know for certain but I'm well and truly sick of it.
Just to add another pain point, in Orlando drivers hire out immigrants to drive for them. I've had many rides where the person driving speaks no English and doesn't match the profile pic despite the car plates matching and having the lyft/Uber app open with my details. Many complaints to Lyft and Uber and nothing has been done so far as I can tell. And as you'd expect those drivers don't obey the laws at all. Last driver I had ran every single red light and stop sign.
I had a similar experience in San Diego. Driver had only been in town 2 days; we had to give him directions (I was there for a conference and had never been to San Diego before!)
The same drivers for Uber are the same cabbies. It's all the same people, running the same tricks. Uber didn't disrupt anything, just moved the platform and added a new middleman.
Recently Uber will randomly select drivers to submit a picture before the app will let the go online. So it seems someone somewhere is trying now, shrug.
Try that bus lane blocking stud fin the uk and you'll find the bus has taken a picture of you, and a hefty fine will land on the door of the registered keeper of the car.
For some reason in London, black cabs (racist drivers with low standards, high fares, and cash only for tax evasion) have lobbied for their drivers to be included in the "public transport" group, meaning bus lanes are full of buses and rich businessmen going to meetings.
Thankfully, at least SF Muni has traffic enforcement cameras
on the buses and trains and they issue tickets when folks are in the bus lane & bus stops.
I drive on London every day. Uber drivers are perpetually distracted. Either looking for a pickup or aimlessly meandering waiting for their next job. There are some serious negative externalities, much like the article.
This probably isn't the sort of behavior you expected when you asked for examples but:
Uber and Lyft were required by a municipal ordinance of Austin to finger-print their drivers. They both objected to this regulation and so they got some local folks to promote a ballot issue that intended to free them from the regulation.
There were a lot of questionable things that happened along with this ballot measure like shady local "advocacy groups" and attempts to recall city council members who appeared to be critical of Uber, but my main issue was that they sent me literally 14 of the same exact mailer addressed to me in . This was in addition to their other mailers, which were also duplicated obscenely. Anyways, the ballot measure failed and Uber and Lyft decamped, but only after claiming they were "forced out of Austin."
They wasted $10,000,000 on all this, which could have finger-printed 200,000 drivers.
They seem like wasteful idiots who want to interfere with society to their own benefit. And that's not even me talking about their flouting of 'taxi regulations.'
I've had a couple of bad experiences with safety. Not many, but a few.
One was when a driver straight-up ran a red light. He had plenty of advance warning. It turned yellow when it was still off in the distance, and it had been red red for a few seconds when he went in. I made sure to file a complaint.
Another driver made a left turn from the rightmost lane of a six-lane road. She had plenty of warning: Google Maps had been telling her to make a left for a while, and I kept telling her "you'll want to get in the left lane". She ignored both me and the nav. That was a one-star ride.
I also had one bad experience with a driver who got furious at me for pointing out a No U-Turn sign to him. This one will need a map.
We were on a divided road (i.e., with a median, no jumping across), and our destination was on the other side of the road. The next intersection after our destination had a No U-Turn sign, and Google Maps instructed us to go on to the intersection after that and make the U-turn there. Driver decided he wanted to make a U-Turn at the intersection with the No U-Turn sign instead.
In case this is confusing, here's a map of what was going on
While he was in the left lane with his blinker on, I kept telling him over and over that there was a No U-Turn sign and that what he was doing was illegal. Eventually, he relented, and for the rest of the ride, he started audibly huffing and puffing. He was utterly furious at me for not letting him make an illegal U-Turn.
Oh, and when he let me off, he parked in a handicap spot. I one-starred him, flagged him for Navigation, Safety, and Friendliness, and wrote the details of what he did; hopefully, someone at Lyft noticed.
I've actually seen a lot of drivers let me out in handicap spots. I always warn them, and they say they'll move out right away, but it makes me really nervous every time. I normally don't report or one-star people for that alone, but I made sure to do that in his case because of his huffing and puffing act. Oh, and he left me a really bad first impression when he first picked me up. He locked the front door and told me to get in the back. I'm a large person, and he had a dinky little Nissan Versa. No way am I fitting in the back of that rollerskate. He didn't unlock the front door until I told him I'd cancel the ride if he didn't let me in the front. It really pisses me off when drivers of econobox hoopties act like limo drivers. Dude, you own a Nissan Versa, not a Lincoln Town Car. Act like it.
(actually, I hate it when Uber/Lyft drivers in large sedans act like limo drivers too... as far as I'm concerned, getting out of the car to open the door for me is an automatic cancellation... I find it creepy, and I won't ride with someone who pulls that crap)
Edit: Oh, and I've also had a couple of drivers who were texting throughout the ride.
I agree that there is usually a "good reason" behind many regulations. The issue is that the law applies with unbending force. Regulations would be both less necessary and less onerous if we could conceive of a more flexible, fluid legal system. It's not necessarily a valid implicit assumption that the regulations that apply to professional hoteliers should be applicable to individuals taking on short-term boarders.
Justice is very slow and very expensive under our current model. I understand that there are a lot of complex mostly-good historical reasons why things became that way. But we need more legal fluidity and better legal accessibility.
> People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason.
In this specific case, it’s clear that this a) happened in spite of regulations, and b) is much more difficult to clean up due to regulations (specifically over-reaching tenant protections).
The regulation is what is screwing the owner in this case. It's a simple ban on short term renting. If it didn't exist then it would just be a civil lease agreement violation and far less painful.
AirBnB went wrong in this case because they don't have a good property owner support channel to remove bad properties like this.
At first blush, allowing the owner to exclude addresses from rental seems reasonable. But if an airbnb host is willing to violate their lease, why isn't that person willing to fake ownership? How far should airbnb be required to go to verify ownership, and what happens when ownership changes?
To be honest, these people sound like shitty, lazy landlords who deserve their bad tenants. They
1 - didn't do a reference check;
2 - didn't swing by occasionally (even every couple months) to verify the condition of their property;
3 - were renting property out and hadn't bothered to provide neighbors their contact info in case of problems;
4 - quite possibly (this is highly variable / city by city) hadn't notified the city they were renting these units, or the city would have sent the fines to them rather than (presumably) to the tenants.
(I say this as a landlord). They feel they are entitled to take out a mortgage then collect checks without any work. It isn't that easy...
Property ownership is public information that can be verified with the town.
Furthermore, I didn't see any reason to jump to such conclusions given in the article. These people seem like professional swindlers so they could have presented false documents when signing the lease.
Most false documents can generally be detected by reference checks, particularly if it includes a credit check. The landlords in the article did not sound like they'd bothered.
Property ownership is not trivial to check: not only does the registrar vary by location, with varying availabilities of information, but who is to say that person X asking airbnb to do / not do something is the X on the title? Further, lots of rental property is owned by a LLC/trust/corporation. Of course you can determine who is authorized to speak for the aforementioned LLC, but it's not an api request away.
These people sound like professional swindlers, you can buy someone's identity on the darknet for a couple hundred dollars at the most. They almost certainly filled out the rental application using someone else's information. That was implied in TFA.
Property ownership is very trivial to check. Calling city/town hall when a property is listed is not an unreasonable task for a multi-million dollar company, more like the bare minimum due diligence. If they can manage to send out professional photographers they can manage basic ownership verification.
You skipped entirely over trusts. Property managers are regularly not named members of an LLC. To wit, I'm a manager of an apartment building that I (quite unfortunately) don't have any ownership interest in. Building a state-by-state, or county-by-county lookup system; verifying person X is authorized to make decisions for a property; then detecting updates is decidedly non-trivial. You can skip googling since I already know the answer: there's very limited information available in many states on corporations. See eg Delaware. Other states don't require updates, or require updates only on very long periods. Many small LLCs simply skip even required annual updates. There's also complications such as the address used by the building and even the postal service is quite possibly not the recorded address. In 2015, [1] claims there were 550k property listings in the US alone. None of this can't be done, but trivial it isn't. I happen to know much of this because I used to work on address information.
And the tenants do have quite a bit of risk here: a fine of $20k is certainly worth pursuing through the courts. So also significant property damage. They seem to be banking (and to be fair, so far it's a good bet) on landlords being too lazy.
Almost all leasing contracts, including the ones you get for free have a no subleasing clause. Even if you win in civil court if they don't pay, your only recourse is to go back to court and try to garnish wages and bank accounts. That takes even more time and money and it's relatively simple to make your assets judgement proof by just "putting everything in your momma's name". If the judgement is too onerous, just file for bankruptcy.
What happened to the legendary importance of the credit score? I'd assume this kind of thing would make it impossible for someone to rent anything larger than a tent ever again.
Yes you can do background checks that include previous eviction cases, but if you throw enough up front money at a landlord who has a mortgage to pay, they will take you.
That whole "putting everything in your mom's name" also applied here. You can probably get a cosigner. If you are a couple, one person gets the lease the first time around, the eviction is only in their name and let the other person get it next time.
They leave the notice on the door. Tenant will typically take it down and toss it in the trash. And like a speeding parking tickets the fines get sent to the owner on record. Which is public record.
How would the government know who the tenant is? I don't know how it works elsewhere, but where I live (Florida), there is no legal registration of tenants for leased properties.
Nope. First of all, in many cases, they have no knowledge of who the tenant is. Second, tenants come and go - the city or county has a deed with the landlord's name on it and can put a lien against it to be sure they get paid. I'm a landlord; fines ALWAYS go to the property owner, then you have to go after the tenants to recoup your money.
Yeah, but eventually it will have to be cleared. This day my car was being driven by XX, or my apt was being leased to John Smith.
While landlords can be more proactive, this goes against all common sense and fairness. If my tenant grows weed or kills a person in the basement, should I go to jail?
The fines are against the property, so they go to the owner (that's part of being the owner). Murder is charged against the murderer (not the crime scene). Contraband is generally charged against the possessor (which would be either the tenant or the AirBnB guest) but the police might have different ideas about who's responsible so you should be an active landlord and have some idea of what your tenant is doing.
The owner will have their day in court and can clear it up about the tenant. I'm just telling you what I see. There were a few notices posted in our building. The owners have no idea until they get a court summons.
If someone grows weed in your house and no one is there when the cops come knocking guess who's getting a warrant?
It's not great, and I have no sympathy for tenants who trash properties - but this seems like a result of being an absentee landlord with an inadequate local agent.
I have to say that in this situation I'd probably change the locks immediately and sort it out in court later; it's not clear what it means to "evict" tenants who aren't living at the property but instead are illegally subletting it.
(Also, jurisdictions with good legal drafting should be making Airbnb liable in this situation too)
It's not illegal to keep out trespassers. Maybe one wouldn't change the locks on the first day, but after seeing one group of carousing teenagers with whom one had no contractual relationship replaced by a different such group, it would be pretty safe to shut the whole thing down.
In most jurisdictions, housing courts are heavily, heavily, heavily biased towards tenants over landlords. Landlords can't change the locks without a valid eviction order. Doing so is likely to delay their eventual success in court - if the scammers can focus the judge on an illegal lock-out, that's going to be the first issue decided.
Sure, but in the meantime they aren't generating gigantic AirBnB fines. It seems that in this case the locks had already been changed to some sort of remote electronic device by the "tenants" themselves?
My experience is from California, but I've worked for a property management company. You'd be in no way safe in changing the locks, unless you gave the tenants on the lease new keys as you were changing them.
As a customer of AirBnB since they first posted here this doesn't surprise me. I live in one of the affected cities, Miami Beach. And it's depressing to see the neighborhood being hollowed out. Early on when it was just a few renters and owners renting out space in the spare bedroom or couch it wasn't a big deal. Half my condo, 24 units, is on airbnb now. We currently don't have a HOA president as the last one was fed up with absentee owners and quit. Everyone is bitter as we're paying a great deal of money to live in a frat house.
Just like the person in the article didn't seem to do -
I think the only way to deal is via legal means.
He didn't threaten them, and he got their runaround.
Similarly - I'd imagine this situation you are facing will impact property resale value - no lawyer here but you might look into legal channels - something like a class action or somesuch from all affected owners will definitely get their attention I'm sure of it..
Illegal subletting isn't breaking and entering, though.
A home is ultimately the home owner's responsibility; if your tenants break the law, you're likely responsible, which is why contracts typically disallow subletting (as well as contain many other clauses to prevent putting the owner at risk). This is why absentee owners with no property manager are putting themselves at a risk, as they can't check on the tenants very easily.
The Airbnb customers had no legal right to be in the property in question. Maybe it's trespassing rather than breaking and entering; but they weren't legal tenants.
That's still a non-sequitur. Trespassing is a criminal violation, doesn't apply here, and has nothing to do with the terms of a lease.
If I'm renting an apartment from a landlord, and you visit me, are you trespassing? No, because I gave you permission. If I'm out of town and let you stay, you're still not trespassing. As a guest, you don't need the owner's permission to be present. As a guest who subleases from me, you wouldn't be violating the terms of the lease, either; I would be.
The case in the article happened because a law is being broken by persons who are not legally responsible for it. This whole problem exists because anyone can create AirBnb listings, even if they don't have the right to rent it out.
If I give you permission to walk into the Y Combinator offices, you're still trespassing. The tenants had no ability to grant legally meaningful permission.
Criminal trespass doesn't work that way. For the most part, you have to have clear knowledge that you are on someone else's property without permission - for example, climbing over a fence, or walking past a "No Tresspassing" sign. If someone invites you into the Y Combinator offices and gives you the door code, you're not trespassing.
If you work at Y Combinator, then yes, you can give people permission to walk into the offices.
If you don't work at YC, then you can't. But that's not what happened here. People who legally rented an apartment invited guests to live there. Nobody trespassed. But the people who sublet the apartment probably violated the terms of the lease, and caused the landlord to be in violation of Miami Beach rental laws.
Behavior like this will lead to Airbnb being sued until a point where they recognize it is cheaper to put a zip-code blacklisting system in than continue to break the law. Right now they make money from this behavior. It's a poor long term strategy that made sense when they were small and scrappy but is no longer acceptable.
Also, they're losing public support - I've used airbnb for years in SF and around the country and they used to have people on their side because they were the underdog. They are no longer the underdog. They are now worth roughly the same as Marriott.
It's never been acceptable. From the start, Airbnb should have never accepted ads from locations where short-term rentals are against the law. As you said, black list by Zip Code. In addition, they need a way to block addresses on a case-by-case basis where tenants are violating leases/rules (i.e. cases like the one in the article, condo associations, apartment buildings, etc.).
Technically that shouldn't be difficult, right? I don't know what kind of database they use but the difficulty should come with the review process before blocking and unblocking, not the act of doing it
> Behavior like this will lead to Airbnb being sued until a point where they recognize it is cheaper to put a zip-code blacklisting system in than continue to break the law
In the meanwhile, they'll continue to accept listings in the name of ubiquity. Then they'll settle lawsuits as a cost of doing business. Why else raise 4.4B? Not for infrastructure or developers ....
Is it feasible to write "Tenant agrees to pay all city-related fines caused by their intentionally renting the property on sites like AirBNB" into the lease, and tell the city they can collect directly from the tenant?
The goal of making AirBNB rentals a crime in the first place is to reduce the number of them. I claim it would be a more effective deterrent to go after the tenants who are profiting, rather than the homeowners who already have no incentives to allow it.
The article mentions the tenant stole some furniture that ended up on two additional listings. If the city went after them, they can nab a serial offender which seems more valuable for reducing the number of illegal AirBNB listings than going after an unaware homeowner.
The contract wouldn't be an obligation of the city, but rather a useful tool to enforce the law.
That's not the way liability works. The city will always collect from the property owner, because they hold the deed. Municipalities don't chase debt, they just seize property or apply liens.
How did the City of Miami figure out the property was listed on AirBNB?
If they're scraping the AirBNB website for images of the front of the buildings, or however their doing it, wouldn't it then make sense to contact the owner to advise them of the unlawful listing. This would give the owner an opportunity make a statutory declaration stating they didn't make this listing.
Probably, the city got many complaints about parties, trash, and different people every week. They're not fining for "using AirBnB" they're fining for "short-term rental" or "code violations". But AirBnB is the obvious way that you get short-term renters, so it's not a stretch to name them without any hard evidence.
I have had bad experience with AirBnB. For me, it was a rental agency posing as a family. The listing had photo of a family which I hoped to meet when I rented. After checking in, I called the phone number and it was picked by a receptionist with the usual courtesy. I asked if I could meet the family, she said "there is no family sir" we are a rental agency. After some days, talking with the next door neighbors, I found that the entire building was AirBnB.
I felt sorry for the real tenants of that locality. They wont have any affordable place to rent anymore. I deleted my AirBnB profile after this incident and another security incident in another rental and will never use this again.
Now I know, there is a reason why hotels charge more, you pay for the safety, the standards and a 24 hours reception desk.
> Now I know, there is a reason why hotels charge more, you pay for the safety, the standards and a 24 hours reception desk.
Yup. I've pretty much only ever had bad experiences with AirBnB. At this point I've just stopped using them. There's a lot to be said for the predictability, comfort and service of a good hotel.
Agree, when I go for a vacation, its my hard earned vacation. I wont and I dont have time to deal with a myriad of AirBnB problems. Hotels are predictable and guaranteed. Another upcoming is Turo. I used it once and discontinued. The owner cancelled my reservation 4 days before my vacation. So I went back to my old faithful Enterprise. The gist of my experience is, if you value your vacation & time, do yourself a favor and go old school. Let AirBnB and Turo make money for their investors, but they can count me out. The only service that I never had a bad experience is Uber.
Does AirBnB not have a way to report illegal/unauthorized rentals? I'd think they'd want something like that just to avoid the problem of their renter customers finding themselves locked out, charged with trespass, etc.
Or is the notification process paying a process server to deliver a subpoena for "all information you possess about 123 Any Street, all persons or other entities related to that address, including listers, renters or tenants, and any other information on your possession including customer service contacts." Basically enough to say 'you listed this and failed to remove it promptly when advised that it was illegally listed, so we're going after you for all fines accrued after we notified you, plus damages and legal fees.'
There's a widely accepted concept in land ownership: essentially the land belongs to the person that tills it. You cannot buy 1000 acres, ignore it and expect that your grandson can show up 60 years later with the deed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
Maybe the homeowners should pay more attention to their properties? Not to mention that in most cases they are the ones posting the listings. If the tenant breaks the rules, sue him or keep the deposit.
But to be fair: the tenant should pay the fine, provided the landlord didn't give him the OK. The govt can easily find the true violator
Yeah, I was struck by how both examples in the article were property owners living out of state who never even met their tenants? One of them thought she was renting to a family with two kids, but it was actually some scammers. Meeting your renters in-person once would have cleared that up.
These people are buying a property, renting it to cover the mortgage, and planning to sell it at a profit. All without doing any work. Treating real estate as a passive investment rather than an active business does damage to the housing market in some of the same ways people complain AirBnB does.
Vacayo was recently accepted into start-up accelerator 500 Startups. Today Vacayo touts itself as a start-up that "transforms long-term rentals into beautiful, short-term group vacation homes available online." 500 Startups did not respond to requests for comment. After we published this story, Vacayo was no longer listed on 500 Startups' web site.
AirBnB are the deep pockets here, and cities that continue to go after landlords instead are leaving money on the table.
The local or municipal government should put the onus on AirBnB. If they made rental illegal, and fined the site for allowing a posting to go up, they would fix it immediately.
It's amazing why AirBnB insists on being the antagonist here. There is already a clear bad faith actor, and everybody wants to see them punished / fail. but AirBnB insists on inserting themselves as a side-plot, rather than simply recognizing the situation for what it is, and doing everything they would want someone else to do if they were in that position.
I actually came to the thread expecting a lot of AirBnB hate, but didn't expect ALL of it focused on them. I've used AirBnB many times around the world as a traveller, and have had generally good to great experiences. But I can understand all the arguments from the other side of how their management or inaction results in this type of bad behavior from the public. It's definitely something I think they need to address before it reaches a critical mass, and stories like this and their response certainly do not help.
HOWEVER, I'm surprised people here just glossed over Vacayo and their founder's roles in this, which is my bigger gripe. Clearly, based on the 2 different home owners interviewed in this story, Vacayo was simply renting out property and converting it into short term rental property without the owner's knowledge or consent. Then posting them on the AirBnB platform, and likely funneling any inquirers to the same listing onto the Vacayo platform. Then of course, claiming it as their 'traction and revenue'.
There's so much illegal, unethical behavior here starting from turning an owner's property into short term rental, going so far as to install new automated locks and cameras. Doing this against the property owner's intent and knowledge, not to mention the city laws. Then funneling another platform's users back to it's own platform. Then taking this arguably shady 'traction' and applying for and getting into 500 startup's program. And I'm sure, if this article didn't make it into the mainstream press that 500 startup would have continued with them, or maybe they are and just not claiming publicly anymore. In any case, 500 startup shares some blame in encouraging or at least willfully ignoring this type of behavior in the startups they fund.
( And yes, yes, I'm aware of AirBnB's own funneling of people from craigslist onto their platform... )
I guess I'm disheartened by this trend of straight up questionable or unethical behavior being passed along as 'hustle'. It's a VERY fine line and I'll be the first to admit and acknowledge some form of 'hustle' is required to get your business traction and running. But some of these cases with Theranos, Vacayo, etc etc really cross way over the line in my view. And it seems some of the major actors in the startup community (YC, 500) are just sort of shrugging their shoulders to it.
I realize startup stories can get romanticized in their retellings over time, and that even our standard heroes like Apple(Jobs) and Microsoft(Gates) have their own questionable tactics in their ascent to the top. But there has to be a line drawn, and as a community we should be a bit more discerning and direct about what's not acceptable lest we get over run by grifters and snake oil salesmen.
AirBnB has atrocious customer service. I once booked a $1,607 30-day reservation in NYC that ended up lacking internet, having a smelly mattress, wasn't the same room pictured in the listing, and a host that dismissed my concerns as "lies". After a day and a half of calling their customer service, AirBnB rejected my claim to a cancellation/refund. Then later they offered me a $100 exploding offer that expired in 24 hours. I ended up having to get the supervisor on the line (no easy task), and finally after 3 days I was able to get a refund. Was not worth the hassle, and I refuse to book long-term on AirBnB since this incident.
Thank you for this post. I had written a draft of my AirBnB experience, but totally forgot to publish it. This article has reminded me how shitty that experience was, and that these companies need to be held accountable for their bullshit.
110 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 205 ms ] thread> Five more days passed, correspondence shows, without Airbnb assigning a dedicated person to his case. Then on March 23, Airbnb wrote Grewal with what amounted to a shrug.
5 days and then a "shrug"? Wow. That's appalling as far as Customer Service goes. I haven't listed on, or rented from AirBnB. But is this kind of customer service normal or is the incident quoted above an outlier? Even if they intended to respond with a shrug, why did it take 5 DAYS for a response??
Has AirBnB become so big that, like Craiglist, they don't give a Sh*t anymore to the issues their users / customers face because they know that they've captured huge chunk of the market and know that their users ain't going anywhere else anytime soon?
It would be very interesting if one of these municipalities changed their ordinance to make the booking agent (Airbnb, VRBO, etc) liable for any violation. And $20,000 per violation in Miami Beach does seem ridiculously excessive.
Or the noticeboard in Publix
"Free wheels. Find them on the car in the driveway at 123 Main St. Also help yourself to the backyard furniture."
And you live at 123 Main St.?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=unknowingly+bought+stolen+car
I love the idea of sharing homes. I just hate how AirBnB is doing it, and the more I read about them (obviously the media is writing articles to get clicks, so I'm sure it's somewhat biased) the more I think we'd be better off without them.
I dunno; it seems to me that in these cases, the people who are really to blame are the "tenants" who are actually breaking both laws and rental agreements.
I'm puzzled as to why the property owners aren't suing them to recover all the money they lost. I mean, yeah, lawsuits cost money, too, but when you're talking a $20k fine, I would imagine there's at least a good chance of recovering more than you pay...and it didn't sound like any of the mentioned owners were attempting to do anything to the bad-faith tenants.
I totally agree that AirBnB has some serious legal issues looming in its future in most if not all of the jurisdictions it operates in, but I honestly don't see these particular issues as being representative of them.
It sounds like you have never been a landlord. It's a five step process that takes at least two months just to evict someone in my landlord friendly state. I've heard it's worse in many other states. After that, it's possible to sue someone but that costs money and time and even after you do win it can take years to actually get your money and go through garnishment procedures once you track down their income. It's seldom worth the effort.
Yes most of the fault lies with AirBnb but being a distant landlord without a local property manager is crazy anyway. I sold my properties because the expense of getting a property manager or the hassle of managing it myself from across town wasn't worth it.
As far as making it easier to recover money. Since it is just another civil case, it would take a complete overhaul of civil court.
Unfortunately, tenants do take advantage of landlord-tenant laws sometimes, and that is terrible. Savvy swindlers can use the system to their advantage.
Being hard to recover money from individuals has absolutely nothing to do with landlord-tenant law and everything to do with the fact most individual people don't have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around to pay legal judgements. You'd have these sorts of issues anytime you sue someone else for anything. Best case scenario is that the person who you are suing has the proper liability insurance that will pay the judgement for them. (Liability is included with homeowners insurance and renters insurance but doesn't usually cover intentional actions)
(Ignoring the fact it's a several months process to even evict a tenant in many states in the first place.)
You can't let AirBnB off the hook here, they have the moral, if not legal, responsibility to prevent the most egregious abuses of their platform.
I love this quote:
Which is funnier: tech bros innovating their way to public transit, or bitcoin folks slowly reinventing financial regulation?
AirBnB, of course, is on a similar path.
I'm with you though, Uber, AirBnB, both seem to be good new age examples of the business strategy privatize the gains, socialize the risk/losses. Usually the company passes the taxpayer the bill; here, instead, a new patsy has been found.
Ultimately it's our time and the police's time that handled things (and the taxpayer), while Airbnb reap the profits.
Frankly, I feel the same about every single one of the prominent "sharing economy" / "gig economy" companies. Uber/Lyft and AirBnB just seem to be the worst of them because they're the most visible of the visible. All of them appear to delight in exploiting the fact that enforcement of codes and rules isn't (and can't be) 100% universal so it's a "go under the radar until caught" model.
Meanwhile, the rest of us get to live with the obnoxiousness with no effective way to push back. Uber/Lyft "drivers" seem to have zero recognition of traffic laws (stopping in a bus lane during rush hour is practically a given these days), AirBnB "hosts" look at property rental rules as an irritating nuisance that impedes their quick buck. Even food companies like DoorDash flout labor laws and "freshly-prepared meals to your door" companies seem to think that commercial food handling rules are just dumb.
I get that lots of people love having the conveniences of life available at the tap of an icon--I do, too, even though I flatly refuse to use any of those services above--but, damn, couldn't we do it while also being considerate of those around us?
This is true, but in some ways I think it's been a good shock to the system. For example, I think taxi regulation is being rethought and that wouldn't have happened without Uber.
In the U.K. the drivers need to be registered for private hire and pay the appropriate insurance. In my experience the drivers abide by the law, are friendly and have nice clean cars. The service itself is miles better than traditional minicabs or black cabs. And it's cheaper too.
As far as I can tell, it's just generally a better taxi service and nobody is getting hurt (though I welcome insights on where that's wrong).
Having discussed it with black cab drivers, the best they've come up with (other than the destruction of their market) is that the uber drivers register in London and then drive in the other parts of the country. Apparently that's bad somehow, but I'm not sure why.
Certainly, and I think I can sum up why you and I have different experiences in another quote:
> In the U.K.
Your government didn't bend to the "but they're just shaaaaaaring so being licensed is haaaaard" bullshit that many governments here did. (Austin, Texas tried to pull it off and the Legislature of the State of Texas smacked them, hard.)
I live in Seattle. The vast majority of Uber (and Lyft) drivers here are on the "UberX" platform so they're virtually unlicensed--except for a basic city permit and a regular driving license--and have no identifying markings except for a standard vehicle license plate. This makes complaining to any regulatory agency about them problematic and while their behavior in traffic is illegal, it is also difficult for traffic police to be everywhere to write the myriad of citations that could result.
Uber/Lyft drivers know this and the minuscule risk of getting caught is vastly outweighed by getting a crappy rating by picking up a passenger a few feet away in a loading zone versus right in the middle of the bus stop where the passenger has dropped the pickup pin.
That's just one of my huge heap of complaints about how the "ridesharing" drivers actually pilot their vehicles. Making a U-turn in the middle of traffic to pick up a fare that's just popped up on their screen is another. But it really gets my goat how they use bus lanes and bus stops as their own private pickup and drop off areas because that one person in that one car is stopping the 40 of us on the damn bus from getting where we need to go. And Uber/Lyft drivers are almost always the ones doing it. I've very rarely seen a liveried taxicab act like that.
Maybe taxicabs do actually drive as bad or worse as "ridesharing" drivers do. Maybe the don't-call-them-taxis are just more plentiful so they're more visible. I don't know for certain but I'm well and truly sick of it.
For some reason in London, black cabs (racist drivers with low standards, high fares, and cash only for tax evasion) have lobbied for their drivers to be included in the "public transport" group, meaning bus lanes are full of buses and rich businessmen going to meetings.
Uber and Lyft were required by a municipal ordinance of Austin to finger-print their drivers. They both objected to this regulation and so they got some local folks to promote a ballot issue that intended to free them from the regulation.
There were a lot of questionable things that happened along with this ballot measure like shady local "advocacy groups" and attempts to recall city council members who appeared to be critical of Uber, but my main issue was that they sent me literally 14 of the same exact mailer addressed to me in . This was in addition to their other mailers, which were also duplicated obscenely. Anyways, the ballot measure failed and Uber and Lyft decamped, but only after claiming they were "forced out of Austin."
They wasted $10,000,000 on all this, which could have finger-printed 200,000 drivers.
They seem like wasteful idiots who want to interfere with society to their own benefit. And that's not even me talking about their flouting of 'taxi regulations.'
One was when a driver straight-up ran a red light. He had plenty of advance warning. It turned yellow when it was still off in the distance, and it had been red red for a few seconds when he went in. I made sure to file a complaint.
Another driver made a left turn from the rightmost lane of a six-lane road. She had plenty of warning: Google Maps had been telling her to make a left for a while, and I kept telling her "you'll want to get in the left lane". She ignored both me and the nav. That was a one-star ride.
I also had one bad experience with a driver who got furious at me for pointing out a No U-Turn sign to him. This one will need a map.
We were on a divided road (i.e., with a median, no jumping across), and our destination was on the other side of the road. The next intersection after our destination had a No U-Turn sign, and Google Maps instructed us to go on to the intersection after that and make the U-turn there. Driver decided he wanted to make a U-Turn at the intersection with the No U-Turn sign instead.
In case this is confusing, here's a map of what was going on
While he was in the left lane with his blinker on, I kept telling him over and over that there was a No U-Turn sign and that what he was doing was illegal. Eventually, he relented, and for the rest of the ride, he started audibly huffing and puffing. He was utterly furious at me for not letting him make an illegal U-Turn.Oh, and when he let me off, he parked in a handicap spot. I one-starred him, flagged him for Navigation, Safety, and Friendliness, and wrote the details of what he did; hopefully, someone at Lyft noticed.
I've actually seen a lot of drivers let me out in handicap spots. I always warn them, and they say they'll move out right away, but it makes me really nervous every time. I normally don't report or one-star people for that alone, but I made sure to do that in his case because of his huffing and puffing act. Oh, and he left me a really bad first impression when he first picked me up. He locked the front door and told me to get in the back. I'm a large person, and he had a dinky little Nissan Versa. No way am I fitting in the back of that rollerskate. He didn't unlock the front door until I told him I'd cancel the ride if he didn't let me in the front. It really pisses me off when drivers of econobox hoopties act like limo drivers. Dude, you own a Nissan Versa, not a Lincoln Town Car. Act like it.
(actually, I hate it when Uber/Lyft drivers in large sedans act like limo drivers too... as far as I'm concerned, getting out of the car to open the door for me is an automatic cancellation... I find it creepy, and I won't ride with someone who pulls that crap)
Edit: Oh, and I've also had a couple of drivers who were texting throughout the ride.
Just quoted this part because it's so important. Most (but not 100%) of regulation complaints are of the "waah waah" sort.
~ Thomas Wolfe
Justice is very slow and very expensive under our current model. I understand that there are a lot of complex mostly-good historical reasons why things became that way. But we need more legal fluidity and better legal accessibility.
In this specific case, it’s clear that this a) happened in spite of regulations, and b) is much more difficult to clean up due to regulations (specifically over-reaching tenant protections).
AirBnB went wrong in this case because they don't have a good property owner support channel to remove bad properties like this.
To be honest, these people sound like shitty, lazy landlords who deserve their bad tenants. They
1 - didn't do a reference check;
2 - didn't swing by occasionally (even every couple months) to verify the condition of their property;
3 - were renting property out and hadn't bothered to provide neighbors their contact info in case of problems;
4 - quite possibly (this is highly variable / city by city) hadn't notified the city they were renting these units, or the city would have sent the fines to them rather than (presumably) to the tenants.
(I say this as a landlord). They feel they are entitled to take out a mortgage then collect checks without any work. It isn't that easy...
Isn't this a matter of public record? Tons of solutions for verifying identity exist and are used in other industries.
Furthermore, I didn't see any reason to jump to such conclusions given in the article. These people seem like professional swindlers so they could have presented false documents when signing the lease.
Property ownership is not trivial to check: not only does the registrar vary by location, with varying availabilities of information, but who is to say that person X asking airbnb to do / not do something is the X on the title? Further, lots of rental property is owned by a LLC/trust/corporation. Of course you can determine who is authorized to speak for the aforementioned LLC, but it's not an api request away.
These people sound like professional swindlers, you can buy someone's identity on the darknet for a couple hundred dollars at the most. They almost certainly filled out the rental application using someone else's information. That was implied in TFA.
Property ownership is very trivial to check. Calling city/town hall when a property is listed is not an unreasonable task for a multi-million dollar company, more like the bare minimum due diligence. If they can manage to send out professional photographers they can manage basic ownership verification.
[1] http://blog.airdna.co/2015-in-review-airbnb-data-for-the-usa...
(I say this a as a tenant). How is that any different than taking out a lease and then collecting checks without any work or risk?
And the tenants do have quite a bit of risk here: a fine of $20k is certainly worth pursuing through the courts. So also significant property damage. They seem to be banking (and to be fair, so far it's a good bet) on landlords being too lazy.
startup-speak: "growth hacking"
The owner should be directly able to pass on these fines to the tenants, assuming they were sensible with the contract.
If not... well, I guess there’s always civil court.
That whole "putting everything in your mom's name" also applied here. You can probably get a cosigner. If you are a couple, one person gets the lease the first time around, the eviction is only in their name and let the other person get it next time.
This will, of course, motivate owners to use contracts when leasing their properties.
While landlords can be more proactive, this goes against all common sense and fairness. If my tenant grows weed or kills a person in the basement, should I go to jail?
If someone grows weed in your house and no one is there when the cops come knocking guess who's getting a warrant?
You do, which is then thrown out when you show that you are renting. Unlike the fines mentioned here, which stick.
I have to say that in this situation I'd probably change the locks immediately and sort it out in court later; it's not clear what it means to "evict" tenants who aren't living at the property but instead are illegally subletting it.
(Also, jurisdictions with good legal drafting should be making Airbnb liable in this situation too)
He didn't threaten them, and he got their runaround.
Similarly - I'd imagine this situation you are facing will impact property resale value - no lawyer here but you might look into legal channels - something like a class action or somesuch from all affected owners will definitely get their attention I'm sure of it..
A home is ultimately the home owner's responsibility; if your tenants break the law, you're likely responsible, which is why contracts typically disallow subletting (as well as contain many other clauses to prevent putting the owner at risk). This is why absentee owners with no property manager are putting themselves at a risk, as they can't check on the tenants very easily.
If I'm renting an apartment from a landlord, and you visit me, are you trespassing? No, because I gave you permission. If I'm out of town and let you stay, you're still not trespassing. As a guest, you don't need the owner's permission to be present. As a guest who subleases from me, you wouldn't be violating the terms of the lease, either; I would be.
The case in the article happened because a law is being broken by persons who are not legally responsible for it. This whole problem exists because anyone can create AirBnb listings, even if they don't have the right to rent it out.
If you don't work at YC, then you can't. But that's not what happened here. People who legally rented an apartment invited guests to live there. Nobody trespassed. But the people who sublet the apartment probably violated the terms of the lease, and caused the landlord to be in violation of Miami Beach rental laws.
Also, they're losing public support - I've used airbnb for years in SF and around the country and they used to have people on their side because they were the underdog. They are no longer the underdog. They are now worth roughly the same as Marriott.
In the meanwhile, they'll continue to accept listings in the name of ubiquity. Then they'll settle lawsuits as a cost of doing business. Why else raise 4.4B? Not for infrastructure or developers ....
The article mentions the tenant stole some furniture that ended up on two additional listings. If the city went after them, they can nab a serial offender which seems more valuable for reducing the number of illegal AirBNB listings than going after an unaware homeowner.
The contract wouldn't be an obligation of the city, but rather a useful tool to enforce the law.
How did the City of Miami figure out the property was listed on AirBNB?
If they're scraping the AirBNB website for images of the front of the buildings, or however their doing it, wouldn't it then make sense to contact the owner to advise them of the unlawful listing. This would give the owner an opportunity make a statutory declaration stating they didn't make this listing.
don't forget the invoices of fines..
I felt sorry for the real tenants of that locality. They wont have any affordable place to rent anymore. I deleted my AirBnB profile after this incident and another security incident in another rental and will never use this again.
Now I know, there is a reason why hotels charge more, you pay for the safety, the standards and a 24 hours reception desk.
Yup. I've pretty much only ever had bad experiences with AirBnB. At this point I've just stopped using them. There's a lot to be said for the predictability, comfort and service of a good hotel.
Or is the notification process paying a process server to deliver a subpoena for "all information you possess about 123 Any Street, all persons or other entities related to that address, including listers, renters or tenants, and any other information on your possession including customer service contacts." Basically enough to say 'you listed this and failed to remove it promptly when advised that it was illegally listed, so we're going after you for all fines accrued after we notified you, plus damages and legal fees.'
Maybe the homeowners should pay more attention to their properties? Not to mention that in most cases they are the ones posting the listings. If the tenant breaks the rules, sue him or keep the deposit.
But to be fair: the tenant should pay the fine, provided the landlord didn't give him the OK. The govt can easily find the true violator
These people are buying a property, renting it to cover the mortgage, and planning to sell it at a profit. All without doing any work. Treating real estate as a passive investment rather than an active business does damage to the housing market in some of the same ways people complain AirBnB does.
so hire a few actors?
Vacayo was recently accepted into start-up accelerator 500 Startups. Today Vacayo touts itself as a start-up that "transforms long-term rentals into beautiful, short-term group vacation homes available online." 500 Startups did not respond to requests for comment. After we published this story, Vacayo was no longer listed on 500 Startups' web site.
AirBnB are the deep pockets here, and cities that continue to go after landlords instead are leaving money on the table.
It's amazing why AirBnB insists on being the antagonist here. There is already a clear bad faith actor, and everybody wants to see them punished / fail. but AirBnB insists on inserting themselves as a side-plot, rather than simply recognizing the situation for what it is, and doing everything they would want someone else to do if they were in that position.
HOWEVER, I'm surprised people here just glossed over Vacayo and their founder's roles in this, which is my bigger gripe. Clearly, based on the 2 different home owners interviewed in this story, Vacayo was simply renting out property and converting it into short term rental property without the owner's knowledge or consent. Then posting them on the AirBnB platform, and likely funneling any inquirers to the same listing onto the Vacayo platform. Then of course, claiming it as their 'traction and revenue'.
There's so much illegal, unethical behavior here starting from turning an owner's property into short term rental, going so far as to install new automated locks and cameras. Doing this against the property owner's intent and knowledge, not to mention the city laws. Then funneling another platform's users back to it's own platform. Then taking this arguably shady 'traction' and applying for and getting into 500 startup's program. And I'm sure, if this article didn't make it into the mainstream press that 500 startup would have continued with them, or maybe they are and just not claiming publicly anymore. In any case, 500 startup shares some blame in encouraging or at least willfully ignoring this type of behavior in the startups they fund.
( And yes, yes, I'm aware of AirBnB's own funneling of people from craigslist onto their platform... )
I guess I'm disheartened by this trend of straight up questionable or unethical behavior being passed along as 'hustle'. It's a VERY fine line and I'll be the first to admit and acknowledge some form of 'hustle' is required to get your business traction and running. But some of these cases with Theranos, Vacayo, etc etc really cross way over the line in my view. And it seems some of the major actors in the startup community (YC, 500) are just sort of shrugging their shoulders to it.
I realize startup stories can get romanticized in their retellings over time, and that even our standard heroes like Apple(Jobs) and Microsoft(Gates) have their own questionable tactics in their ascent to the top. But there has to be a line drawn, and as a community we should be a bit more discerning and direct about what's not acceptable lest we get over run by grifters and snake oil salesmen.
Thank you for this post. I had written a draft of my AirBnB experience, but totally forgot to publish it. This article has reminded me how shitty that experience was, and that these companies need to be held accountable for their bullshit.
https://medium.com/@jeremybernier/dont-try-to-live-off-airbn...