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.

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.

Uber (and its competitors) have certainly disrupted and innovated the transportation industry. But the reviews haven’t all been stellar–there have been multiple instances in which drivers have been accused of sexual assault. So, a new ride sharing company, Chariot for Women, is launching, with both women drivers and for women passengers. However, legal experts are concerned that the company may face legal challenges early on, on the grounds of discrimination.

The company was started by a former Uber driver named Michael Pelletz, who realized that drivers could sometimes be in vulnerable positions if a passenger gets aggressive. That, combined with security concerns from Uber and Lyft passengers, inspired the company. The website states:

The plan was perfect: As a women-owned company, Chariot for Women would use the safest practices to give the most secure and fun rideshare experience in the industry, driven by women, for women. Drivers are thoroughly background checked before they can ever accept one passenger request.

In addition to picking up women, the service will also pick up children under the age of 13, as well as transwomen. Chariot is also planning on using a feature that requires both the driver and passenger to confirm their identities with a code word when beginning a ride.

All of these ideas sound like ostensibly good things. However, the company may run into issues, and gender discrimination lawsuits could cost the fledgling startup quite a bit. Massachusetts employment law specialist Joseph Sulman stated:

To limit employees to one gender, you have to have what the law calls a bona fide occupational qualification. And that’s a really strict standard. The law’s really tough on that. For gender, it’s not enough to say, ‘we really just want to have a female here because our customers prefer that to feel safer.

However, Chariot’s founders seem ready to take on the legal challenge head on. Pelletz stated:

We want to show there’s inequality in safety in our industry. We hope to go to the US Supreme Court to say that if there’s safety involved, there’s nothing wrong with providing a service for women.

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 Chariot: A New Women-Only Ridesharing Company Could Have Legal Issues 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.

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.