In the wake of the Charlottesville violence this past weekend calls to take a serious stand against white supremacy have abounded. And some companies have complied–GoDaddy and Google have refused to provide hosting services for the Daily Stormer; Twitter has suspended a number of accounts; and Apple has cut off its services to white supremacists.

The Daily Stormer previously had domain registration through GoDaddy. When GoDaddy decided to drop the popular white supremacist site, it attempted to move to Google, which also rebuffed it. Now, the site has apparently moved to the dark web. That means that it doesn’t have to work with any sort of mainstream provider, and can only be accessed through a software called Tor.

Twitter suspended some accounts linked to the Daily Stormer yesterday. For many, that was a welcome surprise–Twitter doesn’t necessarily have the best track record when it comes to dealing with harassment and inappropriate usage.

Apple cut off services like Apple Pay for white supremacist websites selling merchandise. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook also sent out a memo to all the company employees, affirming:

We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it. This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality. I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans.

Other tech companies that have, at least in part, shut off service to white supremacists include PayPal, which cut off more than three dozen white supremacist groups, and popular dating site OkCupid, which has banned at least one known white supremacist.

We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid. Within 10 minutes we banned him for life.

— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017

Airbnb actually banned white supremacists from using its platform ahead of the Charlottesville rally, a decision which was reaffirmed by its CEO after the fact. Brian Chesky wrote:

The violence, racism and hatred demonstrated by neo-Nazis, the alt-right, and white supremacists should have no place in this world. Airbnb will continue to stand for acceptance, and we will continue to do all we can to enforce our community commitment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tech Companies Dump White Supremacists appeared first on Law Street.

When Dyne Suh, a law student who lives in Riverside, California, booked a stay at an Airbnb for a skiing vacation with her fiance, she asked the host whether it would be okay to bring two more guests. The host answered that it would be no problem and said they would only have to pay a little bit extra. Suh thought everything was fine but then in February, as the four friends were driving up to Big Bear, California for their trip, she texted the host again to confirm the arrangement and to ask how she wanted them to pay and how much. Suh was shocked when she got a response.

“And she says, ‘Absolutely not… You must be high if you think that that would be OK in the busiest weekend in Big Bear.’ Then she said, ‘No, we’re done,’ and she canceled the trip,” Suh said, recounting the conversation. Suh then told the host she would complain to the company and the host answered, “Go ahead. I wouldn’t rent to u if u were the last person on earth.” Then she added, “One word says it all. Asian.”

“I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners,” the host texted. “It’s why we have Trump.” https://t.co/tMKVeThnPr

— HuffPostWomen (@HuffPostWomen) April 10, 2017

As if that wasn’t enough, the host wrote, “And I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners. It’s why we have Trump.” Suh posted screenshots of the conversation on Facebook. A video of Suh telling her story while stranded in the snowstorm quickly went viral.

Coincidentally, Suh is a law student who focuses on race relations. She says she is a U.S. citizen and has lived in the country since she was three years old, but argues that where she’s from shouldn’t matter. “This is home to me,” she said in an interview with NBC4 Los Angeles. “No matter how long I’ve lived here, for me to be treated this way just because of my race?”

Christopher Nulty, a spokesperson for Airbnb, called the host’s behavior “abhorrent and unacceptable” in a statement to NBC4. He added, “We have worked to provide the guest with our full support and in line with our non-discrimination policy, this host has been permanently removed from the Airbnb platform.”

Airbnb has had some problems dealing with racism and discrimination among its hosts, but in September the rental site announced new guidelines to help identify and fight racial bias. The changes came after many people started using the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack to share their experience being discriminated against. Now it seems like there is still some work to do.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airbnb Bans Host Who Canceled a Reservation Because of a Guest’s Race appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Imagine you’re traveling to Washington D.C. for the weekend. You arrive at the airport and, instead of waiting in the extremely long cab line, order a Lyft. The Lyft takes you to your lodgings for the weekend–a room in a house that you found on Airbnb. When you get there, you’re hungry–after all it’s a long distance from your fictional location of origin. You order a sandwich from UberEats. While you eat, you miss your dog, but you remember that he’s in good hands with his Rover sitter. And you deserve this trip–you didn’t do all those extra tasks on TaskRabbit for nothing!

All of these companies–Lyft, Airbnb, Uber, Rover, TaskRabbit–are part of the sharing economy. Unthinkable just a decade ago, the sharing economy exploded seemingly overnight, creating new services for existing markets. And with those new services come new policy concerns, including regulation, competition with traditional services, and safety. Companies that are part of the sharing economy have plenty to lobby for and against. Read on to go behind-the-scenes with the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and follow the money behind lobbying for the sharing economy at the federal level.

Uber and Airbnb Go to Washington

Let’s look at two of the largest and most well-known sharing economy players to see how they’ve ended up in Washington–Uber and Airbnb. Founded in 2009 and 2008 respectively, Uber’s ridesharing and Airbnb’s roomsharing platforms quickly grew. But as they grew, so did some of their problems. Uber and Airbnb have both been battling regulations and concerns at local and state levels since their inception; take Uber’s exodus from Austin, Texas, or New York’s cracking down on Airbnb advertising. Both companies spend plenty of money fighting laws and regulations that could hurt their business models at the local and state levels. But, increasingly, they’ve started to set their sights on Washington D.C., and have begun lobbying Congress and federal agencies as well. That move makes sense–federal policy can have a significantly greater impact on both companies than that of one city or state. And as these companies look toward innovating for the future, they may very well need federal support.

Their efforts to lobby at the federal level have ramped up quickly. According to CRP, in 2013 Uber spent just $50,000 on lobbying; by 2016 it boosted its lobbying investment 2,600 percent, spending over $1.3 million to try to influence Congress and other federal agencies. Major tech companies that were once fledglings themselves also expanded their lobbying efforts significantly. For example, Google started lobbying in 2003 with a mere $80,000; in 2016, it spent $15.4 million, making it the behemoth in the industry. Amazon spent $11.4 million last year, and Microsoft, $8.7 million.

Airbnb has had a less precipitous ramp-up in lobbying, but has still seen a steady increase over the last few years. In 2012, Airbnb spent $195,000 on federal lobbying efforts, in 2016 that number had climbed to just under $500,000. But Airbnb isn’t trailing some of the largest hotel chains in the U.S. by much. For example, Marriott International, by many accounts the largest hotel company in the world, spent $670,000 on federal lobbying in 2016.

These numbers only provide a snapshot into the lobbying activity of these companies. For a full look at the numbers, check out CRP’s info on Uber and Airbnb. But here’s the important takeaway: Uber and Airbnb, despite being relatively young companies, are making significant moves to influence members of Congress, as well as federal agencies.

Join the Pool: Uber’s Lobbying Efforts 

So where did that money go? As a relative newcomer to the lobbying arena in Washington D.C., Uber hasn’t made any huge moves yet, but has rather mainly focused on smaller scale, attainable goals. While Uber has long sparred with taxi groups, as well as dealt with regulations that have forced it out of some cities and states, those kinds of skirmishes have largely happened at the state and local level. Nationally, Uber has had other priorities, including initiatives to clarify and modernize transportation regulations. For example, one lobbying accomplishment for Uber was getting language into the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the rideshare service to pick up and drop off passengers at military bases.

But Uber has also begun to spend some money on its future endeavors. Uber is already starting to lobby, for instance, on behalf of self-driving cars, which are largely viewed as the next level of innovation for the company. Uber joined a coalition, the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, that includes its competitor Lyft, as well as Ford, Volvo, and Google. Headed by David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the group aims to influence the Department of Transportation as it solidifies some guidelines for self-driving cars. To that end, it spent $30,000 on federal-level lobbying in 2016.

Knocking on Doors: Airbnb’s Lobbying Efforts

What about Airbnb’s lobbying efforts–where do those end up concentrated? Like Uber, Airbnb has largely focused on building a presence and relationships with lawmakers–not any big moves. Early in 2016, Airbnb hired former Republican Congressman Vin Weber, of Minnesota, to up its federal advocacy presence. Weber explained to The Hill: “The good news is, they are smart enough to get involved in this town before they really need anything. They’re trying to introduce themselves before there’s any problem to be dealt with on the federal level.” But Airbnb has been cagey, in its lobbying reports, about revealing its interests in Washington: it often fills in the space for “Specific lobbying issues” with vague phrases like “programs and policies affecting the sharing economy” or “regulatory issues.”

Some of Airbnb’s energy has been concentrated on fighting the hotel industry. For example, the American Hotel and Lodging Association has been lobbying for more intense regulations for short term rentals like Airbnb; Airbnb has pushed back, publicly claiming the organization is anti-union and against minimum wage increases.

Conclusion

Uber and Airbnb have become such ubiquitous parts of our lives, despite the fact that they only sprung up a few years ago. But their moves in Washington, while recent, have been growing and are important to track. Because Uber, Airbnb, and other mainstays of the sharing economy like Lyft, Rover, and TaskRabbit, serve to disrupt their markets and provide existing services in new ways, they are particularly concerned about the effects certain federal regulations could have on their companies.

These companies have also started to increasingly make their political engagement known, especially in the wake of Trump’s presidential win. Right after Trump’s controversial executive order regarding travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, both Uber and Lyft fell into the political conversation. Uber came under fire after continuing to offer rides to JFK Airport despite a traffic strike, and #DeleteUber began trending as a result. In response, Lyft pledged to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. While federal lobbying matters, Uber, Lyft, and other sharing economy companies have shown that they’re willing to up their political engagement in other ways too.

Clearly there are many reasons that both companies have begun spending more heavily on federal lobbying. As Uber and Airbnb become more visible on the lobbying circuit, it’s worth watching how they spend their influence investments.

Resources

Primary

OpenSecrets: Sharing is Caring: Uber, Airbnb, Lyft Invest in Washington

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies: Issues

OpenSecrets: Airbnb Inc

Additional

Business Insider: Uber says it has over 80% of the ride-hailing market in the U.S.

The Hill: Uber tripled its lobbying efforts in 2016

Computer World: Uber, Amazon, and Tesla Ramped Up Their U.S. Lobbying in 2016

Fortune: Major Self-Driving Car Lobbyist Talks Safety, Risk, and Tesla Autopilot

Verge: Google, Ford, and Uber just created a giant lobbying group for self-driving cars

Law Street Media: Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous?

The Hill: Airbnb bolsters its DC lobbying force

Washington Post: Airbnb bulks up lobbying presence as lawmakers increase scrutiny of ‘sharing economy’

The Hill: Airbnb hits hotel lobby in message to Capitol Hill

Center for Responsive Politics

Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Our vision is for Americans, empowered by access to clear and unbiased information about money’s role in politics and policy, to use that knowledge to strengthen our democracy. Our mission is to produce and disseminate peerless data and analysis on money in politics to inform and engage Americans, champion transparency, and expose disproportionate or undue influence on public policy. The Center for Responsive Politics is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Follow the Money: The Sharing Economy Meets Washington appeared first on Law Street.

Uber leadership is scrambling to react this week to the sexual harassment allegations of former employee Susan J. Fowler, whose blog post on her experience at Uber has gone viral. Fowler describes how she was repeatedly sexually harassed and discriminated against yet every time she made a report to her managers or to human resources, she was dismissed. Fowler’s story throws a spotlight on sexism in an industry that loves to paint itself as forward thinking and inclusive, and her experience was not an isolated case–as Fowler’s blog gained traction, women from a range of companies began sharing their experiences with sexual harassment in the tech world.

Uber’s reputation already took a hit this winter when #deleteUber began to trend after Uber failed to condemn the Trump Administration’s immigration ban and continued sending cars to airports during a tax driver protest. After Fowler’s blog post, the deleting trend is back in full force. With rival Lyft picking up some of the client base that was once so loyal to Uber, the company’s reputation–and financial success–could begin to crumble.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has stated that he was disturbed and shocked by Fowler’s experience and within a matter of hours had hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct a review of sexual harassment claims at the company. This will be Holder’s second venture into creating a more inclusive Silicon Valley brand. After Airbnb received widespread complaints of discrimination from hosts, Holder and Laura Murphy, former head of the ACLU, were hired to craft an anti-discrimination policy for the company. Airbnb now has hosts accept its anti-discrimination rules before they can become part of the Airbnb community, and while there have been arguments that the rules are not actually effective and that they don’t go far enough, the new rules were at least a step in the right direction. Holder has always been a staunch advocate for civil rights and was fully committed to women’s rights during his tenure as attorney general–but is he truly being asked to overhaul Uber’s culture or simply being brought on for publicity reasons?

There are doubts that Holder’s team will be able to defeat sexism in an industry where women are rarely given a seat at the table within a nation where sexual harassment has gone unpunished for decades and where the sitting president has bragged about assaulting women. Uber, like most companies across Silicon Valley and around the world, prioritizes results over respect for women in the workplace. Multiple interviews from current and former Uber employees have revealed that the work environment can be very hostile but that no one reports it out of fear of retaliation.

Now that Fowler’s case has shone a spotlight on a reality that we often ignore, Uber has at least taken steps to acknowledge the problem immediately, both by hiring Holder and by issuing a message that acknowledges Fowler’s case when users try to delete the app. However, over the coming weeks as media attention shifts, Uber may have minimal incentives to improve its sexual harassment policies. Uber is still an exciting company for any young developer to work at, and while Fowler’s case may give female programmers and engineers pause, there is little reason to think that many male candidates will choose not to work at Uber because of Fowler’s story.

The most effective boycott would be taking #deleteUber a step further–don’t work for Uber. If Uber takes a hit in its hiring pool, that is when it will truly feel the pressure to reform. It is the responsibility of young, qualified candidates who are working in Silicon Valley to turn down offers at companies that subscribe to a toxic work environment that devalues female voices. Holder will be working to create new policies and investigate past offenses, but his investigation will be futile if we continue to ignore the results and sign up for Uber just the same.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Eric Holder Can’t Save Silicon Valley Alone appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: everyone’s talking about the #SuperBowl: the New England Patriot’s dramatic comeback, the first overtime in Super Bowl history, Lady Gaga’s Spiderman-like halftime show, and the many ads with political messages about diversity and acceptance. When you’re ready to tackle Monday, read on for today’s news and rants:

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

What’s New with the Travel Ban?

Things are moving quickly; on Friday, federal Judge James Robart in Seattle temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s travel ban on people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Trump responded by calling Judge Robart a “so-called judge” on Twitter and pledged to work to overturn the ruling. Trump claims that letting travelers in will put national security at risk and that we should all blame Judge Robart if there’s a terrorist attack–drawing criticism from many Democrats and quite a few Republicans.

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

On Saturday afternoon, Trump’s Administration filed a notice of appeal. But on Sunday a federal appeals court said “nope” and that Judge Robart’s ruling stands. Both sides have until close of business today to file briefs before the 9th Circuit makes a final ruling.

The states of Minnesota and Washington, which filed the lawsuit in the first place, are now joined by close to 100 tech companies that are arguing that the ban would harm their businesses. Apple, Google, Airbnb, eBay, Lyft, Microsoft, Uber, and many others filed briefs last night, claiming that a travel ban would make it difficult to hire employees and that “immigrants make many of the Nation’s greatest discoveries.” The case continues today and the end of this long road is likely the Supreme Court.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Bernie Sanders Wants to Break Up the AT&T-Time Warner Merger

When we heard that AT&T was in talks to buy media company Time Warner for a whopping $85 million, we immediately thought of the game “Monopoly.” I mean seriously, Time Warner is a HUGE asset. The media company owns HBO, CNN, Cartoon Network, TBS, AND Warner Bros. Some people are salivating, waiting for the deal to go through, while others, like Bernie Sanders, are calling for legislators to BREAK IT UP!

The administration should kill the Time Warner/AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people. https://t.co/S8c4ldDqhi

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) October 23, 2016

A deal this big certainly raises concerns, but what some people are really worried about is how it will affect the “independence” of CNN. Media buffs, particularly those on the far right who are critical of the “mainstream media,” are calling foul:

Sure. https://t.co/vYLNENisd6

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 24, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Airbnb announced a major overhaul of its racial discrimination policies in response to several reports of hosts exhibiting racial bias against renters on the home-sharing app.

Airbnb CEO and co-founder Brian Chesky (pictured above) released a statement on the company website revealing its investigative partnership with Laura Murphy, the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington D.C. Legislative Office. After looking into every aspect of Airbnb’s platform, Murphy detailed her findings in a report titled Airbnb’s Work to Fight Discrimination and Build Inclusion.

The report lists nine policy changes that would “greatly reduce the opportunity for hosts and guests to engage in conscious or unconscious discriminatory conduct.” The changes include:

1. Beginning November 1, 2016, all app users are required to agree to The Airbnb Community Commitment, which pledges to “treat all fellow members, regardless of race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age, with respect, and without judgment or bias.”
2. Users must also agree to Airbnb’s “strengthened and more detailed” nondiscrimination policy, the rules of which Airbnb claims are stronger than what are required by law.
3. Airbnb has put in place a full-time product team to fight bias and promote diversity.
4. It will encourage and grow instant book listings.
5. The company will experiment with reducing the prominence of guest photos in the booking process and enhancing other parts of host and guests profiles with objective information.
6. Airbnb will also improve its response to discrimination complaints and better enforce its policies.
7. It will also implement an open door policy for discrimination complaints.
8. Airbnb will offer new training for to help people learning how to fight bias.
9. The company will implement the Diversity Rule, a new policy that will mandate that all candidate pools for senior-level positions include women and candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. Airbnb will also expand efforts to bring economic opportunities to minority-owned business and encourage more people from underrepresented populations to use Airbnb.

The changes come after several Airbnb guests adopted the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack to vent their frustrations of being rejected from bookings–only to see the same rental be re-listed later.

#AirbnbWhileBlack #Airbnb pic.twitter.com/3pIGzQsP57

— Q. (@TinaLaBang) July 16, 2015

Black guests’ suppositions were later confirmed by a study conducted by Harvard Business School students Benjamin Edelman, Michael Luca, and Dan Svirsky that found that requests from guests with distinctively African-American names are roughly 16 percent less likely to be accepted than identical guests with distinctively White names. The same also goes for hosts that are black, regardless of whether the property is cheap or expensive

The announcement of new policy changes designed to combat these types of biases is definitely a step in the right direction for the company. Unfortunately there will always be opportunities for people to still discriminate against others. At least now, both guests and users will hopefully be held more accountable.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airbnb Announces New Changes to Fight Racial Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

In the gig economy, where rides, dates, and living rooms are outsourced, where services are offered by independent contractors who are not employed–but operate under the auspices of a larger conglomeration–who is responsible for mistreatment and discrimination against customers? The person directly discriminating, or the company whose platform allows room for discrimination? Airbnb–an application that connects travelers to the living spaces of locals, in lieu of traditional lodging–is grappling with these questions as users report being discriminated against.

Over the past year or so, as Airbnb has blossomed (the company is valued at $25 billion, with hosts in 34,000 cities, and 191 countries), travelers have increasingly been turned down by discriminatory hosts. A January study by the Harvard Business School offers data that buffers the anecdotal evidence: in the five American cities it covered, the study found African-American travelers received positive reviews 42 percent of the time. But 50 percent of white travelers received a positive review. Those numbers are identical when considering how often a traveler with a stereotypical African-American sounding name–Darnell, Rasheed, Tamika–was accepted in comparison to a stereotypical white or neutral name like Brad or Kristen.

Airbnb has terminated hosts who were found to violate the service’s tolerance policy–and federal law. But that does not mean the company is blameless for any wrongdoing on behalf of its hosts, and as affected users threaten to take their cases to court, Airbnb is taking steps to reform its methods and eliminate any room for discrimination and racism. A few weeks ago, Airbnb hired Laura Murphy, the former head of the ACLU’s Washington D.C. legislation office, to conduct a review of its ability to deal with incidents involving discrimination and racism. Her report is expected by September.

This summer, Airbnb’s ability to counter lawsuits brought about by its users will be tested: in May, a class-action discrimination suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in D.C. by Gregory Selden, a black man who claims he was denied by a host because of his race. Airbnb will respond to the lawsuit by July 13. When users sign into the service, they are prompted with a “class-action waiver,” which essentially ensures people waive their right to sue, or join class-action lawsuits agains the service.

It will be interesting to see how that protective tool holds up in court with the Selden case. According to Joanne Doroshow, executive director of New York Law School’s Center for Justice and Democracy, change will only follow if cases like Selden’s prove successful. “Class-action cases have been the only effective way to prove and remedy systemic discrimination because you can’t prove a pattern of behavior with individually filed cases,” she said.

Meanwhile, new players are entering the home-sharing market in efforts to address customers who are wary about encountering racism and discrimination on Airbnb. Stefan Grant launched Noirbnb–a service geared toward people of color, though they accept profiles from everyone–after he and his friend were greeted by a swarm of cops at the Airbnb property they were staying at in Atlanta. A neighbor thought they were burglars.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #AirbnbWhileBlack: When Discrimination and the Gig Economy Intersect appeared first on Law Street.

The New York State legislature passed a bill last week that would make advertising entire-home rentals for fewer than 30 days illegal. The bill would affect many of the city’s residents who rent out their apartments on Airbnb while they are away. Now it is up to Governor Andrew Cuomo to sign or veto the bill.

The new bill would mean that anyone who attempts to rent out their entire home would be subject to a fine of $1,000 for a first offense and up to $7,500 for a third violation. The law would not apply to people who only rent out a room, while also staying in the apartment themselves.

The bill has been criticized by many of Airbnb’s high-profile investors such as actor Ashton Kutcher and venture capitalist Paul Graham:

Tech is the future of the NY economy, but @NYSA_Majority & @NYSenate might throw it all away with terrible anti-tech bill A8704C/S6340A

— ashton kutcher (@aplusk) June 17, 2016

The @NYSenate is trying to quietly rush through a bill banning Airbnb. If you'd like the decision to be more democratic, tell them.

— Paul Graham (@paulg) June 17, 2016

Renting out an entire apartment for less than a month has already been against the law in New York City since 2011, but this new bill would make advertising for such rentals illegal as well. While the multiple dwelling law that took effect in 2011 was meant to target illegal hotel businesses and landlords who own multiple units, it also made the actions of ordinary people in need of some extra income illegal.

If the new bill is signed into the law, it will not only be bad for the company but would also put 30,000 people in New York City at risk of being evicted, according to a survey conducted by Airbnb. After the bill made its way through the state legislature, company spokesperson Josh Meltzer said in a statement:

It’s disappointing—but not surprising—to see politicians in Albany cut a last-minute deal with the hotel industry that will put 30,000 New Yorkers at greater risk of bankruptcy, eviction or foreclosure.

Airbnb has previously been under fire for its unclear responsibility in cases of guests hosting extreme parties, wrecking people’s homes, sexual assault, prostitution, and even death.

Learn More: Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous?

Linda Rosenthal, a member of the State Assembly the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement:

This bill, once it’s signed into law, will send a strong message that we prioritize hardworking New York families and affordable housing, and will give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on illegal hotels that destabilize communities and deprive us of precious units of affordable housing.

The next step is to wait for the Governor to either approve or reject the bill, making Airbnb partly illegal or not. If you live in New York you can weigh in on the bill here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A New York Bill Could Make Listing Your Home on Airbnb Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama touched down in Cuba last week, making him the first sitting president to visit the nation in eighty-eight years. As the President and the First Family toured the historic center of Havana, they likely witnessed the stunning old city filled with the vintage cars and delicious cuisine that make Cuba unique. As a result of the embargo, Cuba sometimes seems like a land forgotten by time. However, the Cuba that the Obamas are witnessing this week  is very different than the Cuba the average tourist may experience in the next ten years.  As more opportunities for investment and travel open up in Cuba, foreign investors are making moves–especially within the hospitality sector. Consider that Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson is accompanying President Obama on his visit to Cuba–Marriott may be interested in investing on the island. Read on to see which companies are investing in Cuba and why.

Hotels and Hospitality

Starwood Hotels, the company which owns Westin, Sheraton, and W Hotels (just to name a few), made headlines by announcing that it will open three hotels in Cuba.  At the moment, all Cuban hotels are state-owned but Starwood has the financial and organizational power to build hotels that meet the state’s standards. The location of the third hotel has not been made public but the company has stated that the Hotel Inglaterra, which is owned by a Cuban state tourism company, will become one of Starwood’s Luxury Collection hotels and the Quinta Avenida, which is run by a Cuban military-run tourism group, will become a Four Points by Sheraton hotel.

The potential Starwood-Marriott merger that is currently on the table could have a major impact on how these new hotels will be built and run.  On the heels of the Starwood commitment, AirBnB has announced it will open listings on the island by April 2. AirBnB has in fact been planning for the opening of the country for some time now–last year, the company claimed the right to represent all private residences in Cuba. AirBnB’s chief executive Brian Chesky referred to Cuba as the fastest-growing country that AirBnB has ever launched in. Physical accommodation is not the only segment of the tourism sector that is expanding into Cuba: online booking website Priceline, Western Union, and Carnival cruises have all thrown their hats into the ring (Carnival will begin sailing cruises to the island in May). Multiple U.S. airlines have filed for permission to fly commercial flights into Cuba. At the moment, American citizens cannot travel to Cuba on a tourist visa but visas falling under the following twelve categories have been opened:

Family visits, official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations, journalism, professional research, educational activities, religious activities, public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibition, support for the Cuban people, humanitarian project, activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes, exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials and certain export transactions that may be considered for authorization under existing regulations and guidelines.

Travelers must provide itineraries that justify their visa, but they no longer have to apply for a formal travel license from the government. Ease of travel is drawing a steadily increasing number of Americans to the island. According to  Jose Luis Perello Cabrera, an economist at the University of Havana, there was a 36 percent increase in the number of Americans visiting Cuba between January and May of 2015 alone.

American investors for the most part are flocking to the hospitality industry but there are a handful of cases of more specific investments. Consider Alabama-based Cleber LLC, a tractor company which was the first company to receive joint approval from the Cuban government and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Cleber LLC is looking to produce tractors in the newly built port of Mariel just outside of Havana, claiming that these tractors will deliver both a financial profit and an ethical good–improving the quality of life of Cuban farmers. Tractors are just one element of machinery that Cuban farms and factories are clamoring for and as the market continues to open, an increasing number of small businesses like Cleber LLC will be given the opportunity to sell their specialized products on the island.

Chinese Investment in Cuba

American companies are not the only investors chomping at the bit to launch projects in Cuba. Venezuela has historically been Cuba’s largest trade partner but in recent years, China has been vying for that position. Cuba has long been reliant on Venezuela for oil but the regime has now turned to China for its technology and infrastructure needs.

American companies such as AT&T have projects in Cuba waiting in their pipelines but Cuban authorities have resisted American telecommunications investment. Instead, they have turned to Chinese operators such as Huawei Technology Co. Ltd., which was tasked with installing fiber-optic connections in Old Havana. Professor William M. LeoGrande of American University has said that “partly that’s a result of the fact that historically we’ve tried to use telecommunications as an avenue to undermine their government, and so consequently they really don’t trust our hardware.”  Silicon Valley tech companies are getting left behind as Huawei installs dozens of Wi-Fi hot spots around the island. Huawei has also partnered with the Cuban telecom company Etecsa to distribute smartphones, further anchoring its brand with the Cuban public.

The economic exchange between the countries has also led to Cuban efforts to break into Asian trade: Cuba’s Havana Club rum has launched major marketing campaigns targeting the Chinese market, hoping that it will be a gateway to Asia as a whole. In 2015, airlines began operating direct flights between Beijing and Havana as both Chinese investment and tourism in Cuba soared. Although Chinese investors have not paid as much attention to the hospitality sector as American companies, China’s Suntine International-Economic Trading Company has partnered with Cuba’s Cubanacan hotel group to launch a new “Hemingway Hotel”–a luxury hotel with a price tag of at least $150 million. If the Hemingway Hotel project succeeds, then Chinese corporations may commit to more hospitality projects–putting them in direct competition with companies like Starwood and AirBnB.

Conclusion

Although foreign investment appears to open up new opportunities for the Cuban people, it has been argued that foreign companies will only further entrench the power of Raul Castro rather than aiding the general Cuban populace. American (and other foreign) companies hiring Cuban workers will not necessarily be allowed to hire employees directly. Instead, they may only be permitted to hire people through state agencies, effectively blacklisting anybody the regime has deemed unacceptable. Foreign investors will pour their money into the regime itself rather than into the individual bank accounts of Cubans who they hire at their enterprises. Cuba is a nation with a rich cultural heritage that travelers have been drawn to for centuries but many Americans are unfamiliar with the island’s government and its approach towards controlling the population. As diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba expand, American investors are trickling into the country, hoping to prepare it for a potential flood of tourists in the coming years.

While Americans seem to have gained the upper hand regarding early investment in hospitality services, Chinese and Venezuelan companies have been positioning themselves to win the contracts on Cuba’s largest infrastructure projects. Tech investment could be a battleground, as Cisco has already committed to a training institute and Google is interested in working on Cuban connectivity but Chinese investment in Cuba’s internet has already put them at a significant advantage. The swell of foreign investment in Cuba may not provide the stability and equality that optimists hope for, but it should not be dismissed outright. Allowing open commerce and investment in Cuba will allow the nation to engage in the global economy in a way that it has never before–but it is, at least at the moment, unclear who will truly benefit from this expansion.

Resources

VOX: Airbnb and American Hotels Aren’t Wasting Any Time Ppening up in Cuba

USA Today: Starwood: 1st U.S. Company to Run Cuba Hotels in Decades

New York Times: American Firm, Starwood, Signs Deal to Manage Hotels in Cuba

CNBC: Marriott, Starwood Team up to Take on Airbnb in New Merger

New York Magazine: Discovering Cuba, One Airbnb at a Time

Financial Times: No Flood of Investment Despite US-Cuba Thaw

ATTN: 12 Ways You Can Legally Visit Cuba

NPR: U.S.-Cuba Ties Are Restored, But Most American Tourists Will Have To Wait

AP News: Stunning 36 Percent Rise in US Visits to Cuba since January

Worker’s World: U.S. Investment in Cuba: How a Little Red Tractor Jumped to Front of the Line

American Enterprise Institute: Why US Investment Won’t Bring Change to Cuba

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Competes With China for Influence in Cuba

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The New Cuba: Who is Investing in the Island? appeared first on Law Street.

Companies such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and others are smashing the traditional models of business, making it easy for anyone with a smartphone or Internet access to instantly connect with other people to acquire and share goods and services. This trend has contributed to the creation of the “sharing economy” which is quickly becoming the norm in today’s society.

The sharing economy is formally defined as “an economic model in which individuals are able to borrow or rent assets owned by someone else.” On one hand, this new economy seems to offer flexibility and greater options to consumers, while allowing nearly anyone to participate and benefit; on the other, these companies are often subject to less regulation and scrutiny than traditional businesses.

Uber and Lyft’s taxi-like services jump-started a trend that has spread to start-ups in nearly every industry imaginable including clothing, alcohol, and even, as The Daily Show noted, chickens.

This new trend has the potential to be a major disruptor to the economy, as it has already impacted the way that business is done. The ability to rent nearly anything has made ownership much less desirable, especially for the millennial generation, who make up the majority of participants in this economy. When people have the ability to easily rent just about anything, there is much less need for people to make actual purchases. Additionally, many of the largest-growing companies today don’t directly provide the good or service they sell to their consumer base: Uber does not own the cars it drives, Airbnb does not own the properties it rents, and Grubhub does not make the food it delivers. They simply act as intermediaries to connect goods or services with consumers.

Despite its newfound dominance in the modern world of commerce, the sharing economy is still young and as it continues to expand at such a rapid pace, it may face some growing pains. Many companies are coming under fire for allegedly not obeying the laws set in place for traditional businesses to protect consumers and laborers. Additionally, the prevalent usage of contractors and temporary workers in their business models has led to many criticisms claiming that they lack respect for workers’ rights.

Read on for a look at the biggest issues facing the companies of today’s sharing economy.

Consumer Safety

A major issue facing these startups is whether consumers can trust these companies to provide the same level of safety as traditional businesses. Due to their peer-to-peer model, they are often not held to the same legal and regulatory standards put in place to protect consumers, leading to a litany of criticisms.

Airbnb

Airbnb, a company that allows people to go online and list or rent properties for short-term rental, is an alternative to traditional hotels for people traveling for leisure or business. The company is a major player in the hospitality industry, despite the fact that it doesn’t actually own any hotel properties of its own. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the company averages nearly 22 percent more guests per night than Hilton Worldwide.

However, critics are concerned about the safety procedures put in place by Airbnb. The service allows virtually anyone to put up a listing and become a host, and they do not routinely perform background checks on users. The company explains, however, that it has features in place to ensure safety, such as user reviews and a Verified ID process (in which identification is confirmed through a government-issued ID or social media profile). Still, the question remains, is that enough to ensure that both hosts and guests will have a safe experience?

This issue was put in a spotlight last month in a piece published by Matter, in which the author Zak Stone gave an account of his father’s death in a freak accident involving a rope swing in a Texas Airbnb rental. Stone’s piece is an extensive look at the legal and ethical controversies surrounding Airbnb, and includes stories such as one of a woman who died from carbon monoxide in a Taiwanese property. These stories highlight a large concern with the Airbnb business model, which is that the company cannot necessarily hold its listed properties to the same standard as a major hotel chain can with its properties. While hotels must operate under legal and regulatory standards, there are less restrictions on which properties can be posted. Whether user ratings are enough to ensure quality and safety for guests is an issue that can be debated.

Additionally, hosts cannot always be assured by the fact that their guests are trustworthy and will take care of their property. To address this, the company does offer Host Protection Insurance that protects against liability claims liability claims up to $1 million. However, anyone who chooses to become an Airbnb host would presumably be aware that they are agreeing to undertake a certain level of risk by letting a stranger stay in their property.

Uber and Lyft 

The safety concerns that plague Airbnb can also extend to ride-sharing services such as Uber or Lyft. In order to become a driver with one of these services, drivers must pass a background check, in addition to holding a driver’s license and meeting the minimum age of 21. Cars are not maintained by the companies, but must possess a certain level of insurance in order to operate. Despite this, there is a long list of incidents such as assaults, attempted kidnappings, and driver DUIs, among others. There are also allegations that the background checks are not extensive enough, and as such, they are more likely than taxi services to have such incidents take place.

However, taxi drivers have also been accused of similar offenses, so it seems that this issue is not unique to ride-sharing companies. A Cato Institute study found that ride-sharing companies were just as safe as traditional taxis, and also claimed that background checks for such companies often had stricter requirements than those for cabs in the U.S.’s biggest cities. Additionally, users of Uber and Lyft have the personal information of the driver on their phone, making it easier to report incidents (and the same is true if a driver is attacked by a passenger).

Labor Issues

Companies involved in the sharing economy have been held responsible for the emergence of the “gig economy,” which relies on contractors to make up the majority of its workforce. Because of this, they are not offered benefits such as health insurance and vacation. In fact, both Uber and Lyft are facing lawsuits for the “misclassification of drivers” in order to save on labor costs. Because they classify workers as contractors, federal law does not let them form unions to advocate for fairer treatment. Additionally, as noted earlier, drivers are required to use their own car, smartphone, and insurance in order to operate. This may affect the ability of lower-income workers to be able to participate in the first place.

Some may argue that Uber workers are not typically full-time drivers; they often hold other jobs and drive to make some extra money on the side. As such, do these companies need to be concerned about providing them with benefits? It is true that the vast majority of drivers fall in the 18-to-24 age group, and over half of drivers are part-timers. However, Uber and Lyft have been responsible for affecting the businesses of traditional taxi drivers who often do make their living off of their profession. The majority of New York taxi drivers are immigrants, with the median falling in the 50-54 age range. The disruption of car-sharing services on traditional taxi services has been immense, causing taxi drivers all over the world to protest Uber.

Another problem sharing economy startups bring to the forefront is whether or not their models will hinder future job growth. If apps and websites can eventually take over jobs done by people, what effects will this have on the future of the job market?

In a segment on his show, Bill Maher lamented that this sharing economy is a reflection of societal greed, and will lead to greater income inequality because it will decrease the number of jobs available. These concerns, however, are more so related to technological progress rather than directly the result of the sharing economy, so it seems unreasonable to blame the sharing economy. Hillary Clinton also cited the gig economy as dampening wage growth in the U.S., and “raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the sharing economy has had a tremendous impact on the way that business is done, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Many are still skeptical of this system because it is based on trust, and it is difficult to hold this trust without being ensured that your interests are protected by the law. The traditional legal system hasn’t caught up to these non-traditional ways of doing business, but as this business model becomes more and more prevalent, companies will need to continue to put regulations and protections in place for consumers and laborers.

Resources

Primary 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Consumer Intelligence Series-“The Sharing Economy”

Additional

Medium: Living and Dying on Airbnb

U.S. News and World Report: Who’s a Sharing Economy Worker?

The Seattle Times: The ‘Shared Economy’ is Further Hurting Workers’ Rights

The Guardian: Uber and the Lawlessness of ‘Sharing Economy’ Corporates

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

The top stories published at Law Street last week included a look at Kesha’s contract woes, an innovative seed storage program, and a rundown of the 2015 election results. ICYMI, here are the top stories from Law Street last week:

#1 Sony Reportedly Refuses to Let Kesha Record New Music Without Her Alleged Rapist

If you were wondering why pop star Kesha hasn’t put out any new music since being featured on Pitbull’s 2013 smash hit “Timber” there’s an unsettling reason. The singer has put her career on the line in an attempt to free herself from being forced to work with producer Dr. Luke, who she says sexually and emotionally abused her for ten years. Read the full story here.

#2 Seeds of Hope: Inside the Doomsday Seed Vault

October 19 marked the first time in history that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault wasopened up for a withdrawal. Often referred to as the “doomsday vault,” the seed vault was built to serve as a backstop for plant extinction, storing seeds for individual countries to ensure that plant diversity is not lost in a catastrophe. While weather disasters and global warming pose significant threats to the future of agriculture, the recent withdrawal was the result of the war in Syria. Researchers sought additional seeds as the multi-year war significantly reduced their supply of drought-resistant wheat. The idea of a last-resort vault full of the world’s seeds may surprise many, but the planning and implementation of the world’s seed bank have been a long and thought-out process. Read the full story here.

#3 The Results are in: Election Day 2015

A breakdown of the results of some of the most important races to watch, including the Virginia Senate, San Francisco’s Airbnb regulations, the Kentucky Governor’s race, Ohio’s marijuana initiative, and Houston’s equal rights ordinance. Read the full story here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, I wrote a breakdown of some of the top races to watch on election day 2015. Here are the results of these contentious votes:

Virginia’s General Assembly

Why we should have watched it: With just a few key races promising to decide the lean of the state Senate overall, and Governor Terry McAuliffe pushing hard for a Democratic Senate, it was certainly a race to watch. Given that Virginia promises to be a hotly contested swing state in 2016, seeing just how purple the state has become is always interesting.

What happened: The GOP retained control of the state senate, and therefore the General Assembly as a whole. This leaves McAuliffe still without allies, and may indicate an uphill battle for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee for 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

Why we should have watched it: San Francisco voters were offered a sort of referendum on Airbnb’s model of short-term rentals. Proposition F promised to levy some serious restrictions on the company. Add to that Airbnb’s $8 million dollar investment in fighting against the proposition, and a series of weird ads that certainly turned San Francisco voters off, and it became a tense race from start to finish.

What happened: Airbnb’s massive investment paid off, as voters rejected Proposition F. So, Airbnb will continue business as usual in the city where it is headquartered, but it was still a very expensive fight. As other cities may try to create similar restrictions, Airbnb might not want to make spending that kind of cash a precedent.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Why we should have watched it: The Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway faced off against tea party candidate and businessman Matt Bevin. This was an incredibly hotly contested race; recent polls actually showed Conway in the lead. Bevin last year tried to primary Mitch McConnell, and was almost successful, and then beat a more establishment Republican for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

What happened: Bevin won, marking the first time in a while that a Republican has taken the governorship in Kentucky. Moreover, he showed that tea party wins aren’t a thing of the past. His successful rallying against the establishment may indicate who Kentucky will vote for in 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Why we should have watched it: There were a lot of weird aspects to Ohio’s attempt to legalize marijuana. For one, it would have been the first state to legalize recreational marijuana having not first legalized medical marijuana. Moreover, there were concerns of a “marijuana oligopoly,” given that only 10 facilities backed by a group of investors would receive licenses to grow it. So, some that rallied against it were more fighting against the threat of a restricted market than the legalization of weed itself.

What happened: The initiative failed, so weed won’t be legalized in Ohio. However, it’s unclear whether it was rejected because of the oligopoly fears, or because Ohioans actually didn’t want to legalize weed. If it’s the former, we should expect to see another measure up for vote soon that allows a wider market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

Why we should have watched it: The city of Houston, Texas voted on an equal rights ordinance that would have included protections for the LGBTQ community, including on the basis of gender identity. However, the entire thing became a nasty firefight when groups that opposed the ordinance began suggesting that it would allow predators to enter women’s bathrooms.

What happened: The fear-mongering paid off, and the ordinance didn’t pass. The opponents focused on one incorrect assumption, and were successful. Although the U.S. is doing a little better on LGBTQ rights in the wake of Obergefell, the resounding defeat of the ordinance in a relatively liberal city run by Annise Parker, one of the most high profile openly gay mayors in the United States, isn’t a great sign.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Results are in: Election Day 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Today is election day in the U.S., and despite the fact that we’re all already preoccupied with the 2016 elections, there are some interesting races to watch this year as well. From mayoral elections to ballot initiatives, the 2015 elections certainly shouldn’t be ignored. Check out the top five most noteworthy races that are drawing eyes to this year’s polling places.

Virginia’s General Assembly

Today, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia will vote for their 140 members of the General Assembly. While the House of Delegates is almost certain to remain under Republican control, the state Senate is up for grabs, with just a few hotly-contested races likely to decide which party dominates. Virginia’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, is a Democrat, so having a Democratically-controlled Senate would give him more leverage to accomplish his goals in the state. Given Virginia’s cemented status as a swing state, state-level politics may offer an interesting look at which way it could lean in 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

The city of San Francisco, ironically the home of Airbnb, is voting today on Proposition F, which would put some serious restrictions on Airbnb and other short-term rental companies. Airbnb has fought against the proposed restrictions tooth and nail, spending upwards of $8 million. But, Airbnb also pissed off San Franciscans last week with a series of condescending ads that the company later took down and apologized for.

Airbnb issues apology after tone-deaf ads pop up in San Francisco https://t.co/lKdMLfP5c1 pic.twitter.com/YQsEmxsLxF

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 23, 2015

With this very expensive and contentious question being posed to voters, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Kentucky’s governorship is up for grabs, with a hotly-contested race between Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway and the Republican nominee, Matt Bevin, a wealthy businessman and tea party darling. Bevin almost successfully primary-ed Senator Mitch McConnell last year. To a lot of observers, the race between Conway and Bevin is symptomatic of some overall trends–on one hand Tea Party extremists pushing out more establishment Republicans, and on the other, Democrats struggling in state wide races. Like the Virginia State Assembly, this Kentucky governor’s race may shed some further light on national trends as we move toward 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Ohio voters will have to vote on Issue 3, which if it passes, will legalize recreational and medical marijuana in the state. If it passes, Ohio will be the first state to legalize recreational marijuana without first legalizing medical marijuana. But there are some serious concerns about the implications of legalizing marijuana in Ohio, summed up yesterday by fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans. One big concern is the fact that legalizing marijuana it in the state will make the group of 10 investors pushing the effort very wealthy, as they will have control over the state’s marijuana market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

The city of Houston, Texas, will be voting today on an equal rights ordinance which would specify non-discrimination in arenas such as employment and public housing. The law, which is on the ballot as Proposition 1, would include protections for the LGBTQ community, as it specifies sexual orientation, genetic information, and gender identity. Opponents to the ordinance have fixated on one particular aspect–that it will allow people who are trans to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, and made some truly disgusting and fear-mongering commercials urging people to vote against it.

Given that this is one of the first big public tests of LGBTQ rights post-Obergefell, the Houston vote is certainly one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2015 Elections: Top Five Votes to Watch appeared first on Law Street.

Denizens of San Francisco may have noticed something weird this week–a bunch of uncomfortably confrontational Airbnb ads. The ads gave the city condescending suggestions about what it could do with the $12 million it paid in taxes. Unfortunately, the billboards were incredibly poorly received.

Airbnb issues apology after tone-deaf ads pop up in San Francisco https://t.co/lKdMLfP5c1 pic.twitter.com/YQsEmxsLxF

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 23, 2015

I feel like the Airbnb advertising team has read about San Francisco but never actually lived here. pic.twitter.com/nICrqpRJsQ — rude moon (@skrzkrk) October 21, 2015

Airbnb put up these ads all over San Francisco bus shelters and billboards: https://t.co/Ldc47nzoVG pic.twitter.com/QqH7V9xbR3

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 23, 2015

How #Airbnb’s passive-aggressive ads backfired in San Francisco: https://t.co/MbzQZul4Y2pic.twitter.com/H8wfkXPKmh — New York Magazine (@NYMag) October 22, 2015

Currently, Airbnb is waging a battle against a proposed initiative in San Francisco, where it is headquartered. The initiative, Proposition F, will place new restrictions on landlords who offer short term rentals–exactly Airbnb’s business model. Voters will have the opportunity to vote on the initiative on November 3. Airbnb has fought rabidly against the proposal, spending more than $8 million to rally against it.

In that light, the ad campaign came across as bratty and disingenuous, at best. While the point was clearly intended to be that Airbnb is good for San Francisco, and brings in a lot of tax revenue, it came across as rudely criticizing the city for not spending enough money on public works and whining about the taxes levied against the company. Many also pointed out that Airbnb shouldn’t be giving itself a round of applause just for following the law and paying its taxes.  After the social media backlash, Airbnb apologized and took down the ads. The company also issued the following statement via Twitter: 

We apologize for Wednesday’s SF ads. They displayed poor judgment and do not live up to the values and humanity of our global community. — Airbnb (@Airbnb) October 22, 2015

Given that Airbnb is currently trying to garner goodwill in San Francisco prior to the Proposition F vote, this doesn’t look good for the short-term rental giant. While Airbnb is growing like crazy, its hometown may be passing some restrictive new provisions come election day this year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airbnb Takes Down Passive-Aggressive Ads in San Francisco appeared first on Law Street.

Mobile room finder Airbnb has built a global business turning people’s spare rooms into quick money makers, and it’s easy to see why. Personalized renter profiles, diverse global listings, and easy payment options are enticing millions of out-of-towners to sign up. But for Jacob Lopez, his Airbnb stay in Spain wasn’t the “unique travel experience” he was looking for, and has raised many questions about Airbnb’s safety policies.

The 19-year-old is alleging that on July 4 he was held captive and sexually assaulted by his Airbnb host, while staying in Madrid. However, the most shocking part of Lopez’s story is that the horrible encounter could have potentially been prevented had Airbnb employees responded more seriously to his mother’s desperate pleas for help.

Jacob Lopez’s @Airbnb horror story is a cautionary tale. http://t.co/iU0KksvIuG pic.twitter.com/nQYJE6qtwJ

— smh.com.au (@smh) August 16, 2015

According to the New York Times, Lopez sent  his mother, Micaela Giles, a series of messages begging for help after his host locked him in the fourth-floor apartment, cut off his internet access, and began “rattling knives in the kitchen” while pressuring him to engage in a sexual encounter. He says that his host, who was born male and living as a female, repeatedly tried to kiss him and ordered him to take off his pants unless he wanted to sleep in the streets without his belongings.

Giles immediately phoned Airbnb requesting help, but employees would not give her the address where her son was staying, or call the police. They did give her the number to the Madrid Police, telling her to have them call Airbnb and formally request the address, but the number only led her to a Spanish voicemail that kept disconnecting her. When she tried to call the Airbnb representative again, her calls went unanswered.

That night Lopez was eventually able to escape after persuading his host to free him, but not after first being sexually assaulted. When police finally questioned the host she denied threatening him and said that “the sex act was consensual and that he is transphobic.”

The Times wrote,

The Madrid police would not comment on the investigation, though his host said that they had already visited her and that she expected to be exonerated.

This story is both terrifying and cautionary, but how was it even able to happen? One would think that Airbnb would have a responsibility to its guests to ensure their safety, but in this case, conflicting polices reportedly prevented them from acting in an appropriate moral capacity. According to the same Times article,

On one hand, Airbnb wants sexual assault victims to be able to decide for themselves when, how or if to report a crime. On the other, the company wants to report crimes in progress when customers are in danger and will turn over information quickly if the police request it.

In this case, the Airbnb employees claimed that they didn’t know that they were being asked to help prevent a potential assault, as opposed to hearing about one that had already happened. That confusion led them to respond in the manner they did.

Airbnb execs are currently reviewing and updating the company’s safety procedures so that cases like this won’t happen again in the future, but that does little to help this victim. Lopez is now back in Massachusetts and undergoing trauma therapy, but this should serve as a serious wakeup call for Airbnb about their safety training.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Horrific Airbnb Assault Never Should Have Happened appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy year, with a lot of technology developments, scandals, and big stories. Read on to check out the top 15 tech stories of 2014.

1. New York Court OKs Revenge Porn; Will the Legislature Act?

Revenge porn was one of the hottest legal topics of 2014. “Revenge porn” most frequently occurs when a person posts nude photographs of an ex-lover on the internet as a way to embarrass or degrade the ex. The photographs are often exchanged willingly, but after the relationship goes sour, a jilted ex may post the pictures in a public forum. The practice disproportionately targets women, and can truly damage someone’s life. In March, a New York court dismissed a revenge porn case, signaling that it may have been time for the legislature to step in.

2. The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water

Snapchat, the messaging service that claims data instantly disappears upon receipt, found itself in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) based on violations of the company’s own privacy and security policies in May. The FTC complaint mainly focused on accusations that Snapchat misled their customers by promising certain security and privacy features. Snapchat eventually settled the FTC case, but remains on probation and will require monitoring.

3. Technology and the Bullying Epidemic: The Case of Yik Yak

Between laptops, cellphones, tablets, and iPads, students have more access to technology than ever before. This comes with numerous benefits — but it also comes with a lot of responsibility. One app that took the college and high school technology scene by storm this year was Yik Yak, which allows users to post anonymously to a regional “virtual bulletin board.” While the app was invented in presumably good fun, there are concerns that the anonymity enables cyberbullies.

4. New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras

The Department of Justice investigation into the New Orleans Police Department following Hurricane Katrina resulted in sweeping reforms of the department, including the requirement that patrol officers wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust of the citizens. They hope to guarantee police accountability, as well as provide a resource for officers when they write their reports and testify. While how exactly to deal with implementing police cameras remains a question, it will be interesting to see what happens in New Orleans as a result.

5. Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web

Another hot tech topic this year was the concept of “net neutrality.” There’s been a lot of back and forth, and each major player–the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and our politicians, such as President Barack Obama, have their own takes. The legality of fast lanes is a tricky question–one that the FCC had to contend with this year.

6. Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach

Late this summer, a major leak of female celebrities’ nude photos hit the web. It was dubbed the “Fappening”–a form of crude wordplay. It included superstars such as Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, and Kate Upton. While some celebrities denied the validity of the photos and others embarked on conversations with the public, the whole scandal said a lot about the potentially false security of the internet, as well as the degrading way in which women are often treated on the web.

7. The Alibaba IPO: What Does Going Public Mean?

Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba decided to go public this fall, and had the largest Initial Public Offering (IPO) in history. Alibaba’s success raised a lot of questions about what IPOs are, how they work, and what the various advantages and disadvantages are for companies. Alibaba’s extreme success is a sign that the stock market remained strong in 2014.

8. #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, feminist cultural critic and video game developer, respectively, are two among a community of feminist gaming figures. They spoke out against misogyny and sexism in the gaming industry, and received threats, hatred, and truly vile responses. Sarkeesian had to cancel speaking appearances, and Wu was actually forced out of her home when her personal address was revealed. Sarkeesian and Wu were just a few of the players attacked in the #GamerGate trend that raged on late this fall.

9. AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. There was a big debate this year in San Francisco, Airbnb’s home, over whether or not to pass a bill that would legalize the room-sharing network, with some caveats. It eventually passed, meaning that Airbnb will continue to operate in San Fran.

10. Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal 

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. However, whether or not Snowden’s actions were legal is a completely different question.

11. Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive

Ridesharing rivals Lyft and Uber are going at in the courtroom as Lyft sues a former employee, now a current Uber exec, for stealing proprietary information. As the two leading companies in ridesharing–although Uber is quite a bit ahead of Lyft–there’s plenty of reason for the two to be competitive. The case in question regarded proprietary information that former Lyft executive Tyler VanderZaden may have taken with him when he moved from Lyft to Uber.

12. Bitcoin: What’s Next?

Bitcoin has grown into a major player in techno-currency, but what’s up next for the digital coin? Bitcoin is still trying to drag itself away from the perception that it’s used exclusively for criminal activities, and firmly establish a role in the mainstream. Regulations are also slowly starting to be put in place–it will be interesting to see Bitcoin’s future.

13. KKK vs. Anonymous: Cyberwar Declared over Ferguson Protests

The group of unnamed “hacktivists” Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan have engaged in an apparent all-out cyber war over the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Anonymous was trying to prevent the KKK’s involvement in Ferguson-inspired protests, and took over many of the KKK’s social media accounts. The KKK responded with threats, and tensions continued to run high in Ferguson.

14. Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy

Aereo, once hailed as a game-changer in the cable industry,  filed for bankruptcy. Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright. Despite high hopes for the innovative idea, Aereo is now essentially dead in the water.

15. Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

You know that Facebook copyright declaration you just posted? It’s useless. Seriously, it’s time to stop posting it. Every so often Facebook changes their terms and policies, and a bunch of people post a weird, incorrect disclaimer stating that they have copyright over their own content. The problem is that the notice does nothing, except confuse your Facebook friends who see it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 15 Technology Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. It was founded in San Francisco, usually the home for inventive new apps and websites, in 2008. However, the fact that San Francisco is Airbnb’s birthplace doesn’t mean that everyone in the city loves it. Much to the contrary — Airbnb’s strong presence in San Francisco has led to a political fight for the ages in the Bay Area.

Airbnb is essentially a way to rent out living space for short-term use. Often people who have extra bedrooms, second apartments, or some other space will post it on the site. They are registered and checked by Airbnb. Then, a traveler can choose a site that fits their needs. Airbnb allows the host and the guest to communicate. Much of the site is community-driven — after you stay with an Airbnb host you are asked to rate them, and they are asked to rate their guests. That allows others to make informed choices about the listings they choose to stay at and Airbnb guests that hosts choose to approve.

Full disclosure, I’ve used the site, with great success, as have many of my friends. Airbnb is often lauded as the Millennial way to travel — a combination of couch surfing, social media, and budget flexibility. And it’s worked — Airbnb has been enormously successful. A recent valuation put the space-sharing pioneer’s worth at approximately $13 billion.

Yet the history of Airbnb in San Francisco remains a curious one. This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to officially legalize operations like Airbnb, but with some caveats. The type of room-sharing that Airbnb is built on will be allowed, but the site will need to collect the same kind of taxes as hotels or other commercial lodging venues. There will also be more oversight from the city — certain registration for short-term rentals will be required. Furthermore, people renting Airbnb spaces have some rules about how often they have to live in the rental space. Those against the bill argued that it was way too restrictive and would make it too tough on those who want to sublet in a non-Airbnb related sense.

Mayor Ed Lee still needs to sign the bill, of course, but it’s a step forward on a fascinatingly gridlocked issue. As the Board President, as well as the one who proposed the legislation, David Chiu explained the Board’s motivation, saying,

We have seen an explosion of short-term rentals without any regulatory or enforcement structure to handle this new activity. … This is a balanced, reasonable approach.

Interestingly, invested in the debate was California Senator Diane Feinstein, once San Francisco’s mayor. In light of the contentious debate, she wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Gate slamming the proposed law and arguing that the city should not legalize Airbnb in any sense whatsoever. However, the Board went ahead and approved the bill anyway.

It’s a fascinating question that many technology-driven businesses — Uber, Lyft, etc. — have had to answer. When you operate in a non-tangible setting, online, what laws govern you? Airbnb certainly had a victory with the new San Francisco law, even though it may force some hosts to make their rentals more expensive to deal with the taxes. But for now San Francisco will continue to provide affordable, unique, and flexible lodging.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Venturist via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney recently reported on Airbnb’s developing legal problems and how, frankly, they just cannot catch a break despite their ever-expanding market and wild success. Airbnb has been in a constant legal battle with New York dating back as far as 2010 and continuing well into 2014 (check out: here and here). The trend continued with Portland banning the company’s operations from all residential areas, though the city is now easing those restrictions. There were also issues in Los Angeles and the state of Michigan — truly, the list goes on and on. Now that we’re well into 2014, has Airbnb’s luck changed? The answer is unequivocally no.

As of April 29, 2014, San Francisco joined the legal battle grounds with a potential city ballot initiative against the home-sharing service. Backed by housing activist, Calvin Welch, former Planning Commissioner, Doug Engmann, and PR professional, Dale Carlson, the proposal calls for the following:

1. Creation of a public mandatory registry of all residents who rent out short-term space.
2. Evidence of landlord or homeowner permission to rent.
3. The right of any citizen to file a complaint against an Airbnb rental, go to court, and receive 30 percent in fines or back taxes as a result, along with compensation for their attorney fees.

The most controversial (and little bit scary) part of the proposal is the ability to financially reward residents for actively spying on reporting neighboring hosts who are not in compliance with these rules. While this section of the proposal may not make it to the ballot, let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that they are calling for Airbnb bounty hunters. In the midst of all these legal scuffles, it appears that the ‘share-economy’ company has yet to lose its stride and will continue to introduce new policies to disrupt the hospitality market.

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published November 6, 2013.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

[New York Times]

Anneliese Mahoney (@amahoney8672)

Featured image courtesy of [OuiShare via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Latest AirBnB Backlash: San Fran May Offer Cash to Snitch on Neighbors appeared first on Law Street.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Allen Skyy via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Locked in Battle with New York Attorney General appeared first on Law Street.