More lawsuits and rulings
Massachusetts 2017
In its first pro-residential zone ruling, the Land Court affirmed a zoning board's finding that "...the [property owner] is essentially operating a commercial enterprise in a single-family residential zone." The court also said "weekly rental use is inconsistent with the purpose of a single-family residence district..."
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In an April 2019 decision, Justice Donohue wrote : "The establishment of residential zoning districts has long been recognized as a valid exercise of a municipality’s police power. They serve to insulate areas intended for residential living from increased noise and traffic, protect children living there and their ability to utilize quiet, open spaces for play, and to maintain 'the residential character of the neighborhood.' Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 394 (1926). Non-family uses, including fraternity houses and boarding houses, have been found to be antithetical to the residential character."
Airbnb vs. Santa Monica, US Court of Appeals
Expedia's HomeAway and Airbnb, losing arguments that focus on the real issue of zoning, decided to try arguing the First Amendment. The court dismissed them out of hand. The law is about conduct, not speech, the court said. And conduct that turns residences into revolving door hotels is not allowed.
The platforms then went to the US Court of Appeals. They claimed that Santa Monica's home sharing ordinance — which requires that the place be one's actual home, and that one is there, actually sharing it — makes them unduly responsible for third-party content ofntheir websites. The Court said that Santa Monica's ordinance never said the platforms had to remove those illegal listings, only that they could not complete a transaction. Expedia and Airbnb replied: “common sense explains” that they cannot “leave in place a website chock-full of un-bookable listings!” Ah, that would suck for them. Too bad.
- NEWSFLASH: AIRBNB et al LOSE, "NO-INVESTOR/PROFITEER" REGULATIONS STAY, AND ONLINE PLATFORMS MUST REMOVE ILLEGAL LISTINGS.
Airbnb vs. Palm Beach County
Palm Beach passed an ordinance that made online platforms responsible for the properties they list for rent, and for the de facto hotel taxes they promised local officials. The ordinance requires the firms to verify that every property they're going to list is registered with the tax collector’s office and has met the business and tax collection requirements. Palm Beach also expects these platforms to submit monthly reports of each property advertised, the property’s tax collector account number, the parcel ID number, the address, name of host, total number of nights rented, and amount paid per stay. Airbnb, valued pre-IPO at $38 billion, sued and said it's just too burdensome.
- NEWSFLASH: AIRBNB HAS GIVEN UP AND SETTLED, ABANDONING THE ARGUMENT THAT PALM BEACH IS MAKING IT "SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM."
Airbnb vs. Boston
Last summer, Boston’s City Council and Mayor Marty Walsh passed an ordinance stopping absentee investor-owners from buying up real estate to establish de facto Airbnb hotels. Airbnb sued, saying it merely puts what users post online, and can't be held responsible for whether the posts are legal or not.
- NEWSFLASH: AIRBNB CAVED, AGREEING TO THE REGULATIONS AND TO REMOVE ILLEGAL LISTINGS, WHICH IT LIKES TO SAY IS WAY TOO HARD TO DO.
Airbnb vs. Miami
Airbnb is arguing that a new ordinance restricting how rentals are advertised online makes them unfairly responsible for content on its platform. Mayor Dan Gelber said platforms should, minimally, know they're renting where it's legal. He said Airbnb was suing “so they can continue to illegally rent in our neighborhoods.”
- NEWSFLASH: AIRBNB CAVED, AGREEING TO THE REGULATIONS AND PAYING MIAMI'S $380,00 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES.