The irony of YC's flagship startup forcing exploding term sheets on their customers is a bit much to take.
[ps]
Airbnb's statement concluding this story says that this interaction fell short of their expectations. Maybe they can go a bit farther. Can they commit (just a comment here would suffice) to not using the exploding-settlement tactic with their clients? Maybe all they'd really need to say is that nobody outside their counsel's office will ever be authorized to put an explicit time limit on any offered settlement.
Thats a pretty unreasonable request that a billion dollar company agree not to include deadlines in their settlement offers moving forward.
In fact I've never heard of a settlement agreement without a deadline, it wouldn't amount to malpractice but it would be pretty negligent to offer any type of settlement agreement on open ended terms of acceptance. As to the NDA/confidentiality, that too is the default of settlemenre, and if this were in litigation any settlement talks/negotiations are confidential by rules of the court.
Which is why I said "nobody outside their counsel's office".
Here, we're all pretty clear these aren't good-faith deadlines, but rather negotiating devices intended to coerce people into accepting terms without consultation with their own lawyers.
This doesn't read as a settlement to me. It reads as "if you want the rest of the sum you are entitled too, you have to sign this NDA so you won't be able to further tell the public how we've tried to not reimburse the damage".
In fairness I haven't read the contract between this host and airbnb...but very unlikely is anyone "entitled" to any funds legally.
Rather, airbnb likely has a provision for a claims process to evaluate these types of incidents, make determinations and if applicable make an offer to settle the claim. But the host is not unilaterally entitled to any funds.
Now if the host is unsatisfied with the terms of the settlement for any purpose, whether it be the amount, the required release of liability or confidentiality...then, the host can reject/counter the offer and take it to court if necessary, where they can prove they are entitled to damages and airbnb is liable for said damages.
But for the record you are right that is how it reads, because that's the rule on how settlement agreements read. In other words if you want to resolve x here and now with me putting cash in your pocket, while simultaneously waiving my right to due process, you will release me from further liability regarding the claim, and agree not to disclose the terms of the settlement. Otherwise you can incur the time and costs of court and I'll do the same to begin preparing my defense, And that's why I can't leave the offer open ended because the circumstances of the claim have changed (in this case time and cost involved, but in others it could be evidence that comes out that helping my case).
Is there room for such a term as "strongarm tactics" in your lexicon? And how do we feel about the gross imbalance in power between AirBnB and an individual?
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to feel, just objectively explaining why settlements have to have deadlines. Of course unlevel playing fields are always a concern, obviously that's naturally going to be the case between multi billion dollar companies and the little guy. One party (hopefully) has fully developed processes and procedures, likely developed/vetted by a large firm or in-house Counsel, but forcing open ended settlement offers on them isn't leveling the playing field. Such a system might only unlevel the playing field more, for example this claims process (while far from perfect) likely would exist, it would basically be telling the little guy to hire a lawyer from the beginning.
Yes there are terms for "strong arming" that would invalidate contracts or even this settlement: "coercion". Now think more along the lines of the GodFather making an offer he can't refuse (gun to your head asking you to sign) or I'm locking you in the room until you agree verse an offer with 24 hour deadline to accept with a confidentiality provision.
They also screw over the neighbors of the hosts, too.
> During the party, the unwelcome guests overflowed out of his unit into the entire apartment complex, where they partied to blaring music (they came with a professional sound system), urinated all over, fought (with each other and the neighbors) and took drugs to the point of passing out in the stairways, hallways, courtyard and other public areas. Neighbors called the police five times and some partiers left, but most remained and locked themselves inside to continue partying.
This is why I hope the governments throw the book at AirBNB and their executives for every single law they've broken.
AirBnB was YC's original poster child for "we invest in them because they are so passionate that can't be hamstrung by obeying the law, website terms and conditions, or being honest in general"
Edit: My apologies, I misunderstood what exploding meant in this context. My bad!
---
I'm not really sure the term sheet is "exploding". If I'm reading it right, it basically says "I absolve AirBNB of any further responsibility, and I agree not to talk about this payout". That's pretty common for a whole bunch of reasons [1].
"Exploding" the way you are referring to it really is a term related to startup funding, right?
The problem is startup funding != claims/dispute resolution/litigation.
In other words...exploading offers in funding don't have the same justification as deadlines to accept settlements. Moreover, settlement offers need deadlines because if they are not accepted the legal cost are exponentially increasing for both parties.
For example, I might try to settle a case the night before mediation and offer settlement that expires if not taken before mediation the next day, because that mediation might add $20k to my client's bill, and so an open ended settlement would allow the opposing party to force my client to incur $20k cost and then turn around and still take the deal.
An exploding offer is simply one that has a deadline set so short that the recipient must accept or reject on the spot.
In startup funding, they're intended to prevent you from comparing an offer to other potential offers from other investors. In the Airbnb case, they're intended to prevent you from consulting with a lawyer or further appraising your damages.
I'd call it a poison pill. Consider what it most likely is trying to prevent you from doing, and then go do that instead of what condition the poison pill is attached to.
"Poison pill" has a very different, established meaning in corp law. "Exploding" here hews well to the old Mission Impossible bit: "This message will self-destruct in ten seconds."
I don't object to you calling it that, but it is literally the thing people are talking about when they refer to "exploding offers" from venture capitalists, which is the irony here.
What's going on here? The first half of the story sounds like routine corporate incompetency. Representatives don't read your stuff, can't be bothered to follow their own procedures, and screw you over. Unacceptable but, alas, fairly common when dealing with big companies.
The NDA is where it goes off the rails. He's entitled to that money, so why would they try to put conditions on it? I'm sure they're not thrilled to have him talking, but it's not like they have a choice in the matter. Once someone who is allowed to use their brains got involved, the result should have been a quick payment and an end to the saga.
It's not unusual for settlements to have conditions attached, which makes this NDA thing somewhat less outlandish than it seems at first. For instance, if you settle with an insurance company after a car accident, you may have to sign something which says "that is it", waiving your right to sue anyone for anything more.
If the person is properly compensated 100%, but keeps talking, it can be argued that their material damage has been fully restored, while they continue to inflict material damage against the other party. Thus there is some unfairness there. AirBNB, the company, didn't wreck that apartment; the renters did.
Not that the devil would ever have me as his advocate, but let me play one for a second ...
> you may have to sign something which says "that is it", waiving your right to sue anyone for anything more
Isn't that quite different from an NDA though? With insurance, everything is documented and available for access in case you need to reference it at some later point in time. With an NDA, the settlement is effectively hidden from view and is much harder for you to legally discuss if you need to reference it at some later point. For example, if the owner decides to sell the apartment and the prospective buyer wants to know the history of any damages.
NDAs (aka confidentiality clauses) attached to settlements are extremely common - have you ever seen the phrase "settled for an undisclosed sum"? It's usually because of some sort of confidentiality clause. Here's some background on those, and why they're used:
Re: your house example, the NDA linked in the article don't go that far. IANAL, but it's actually pretty reasonable as far as I can tell. It basically says "I absolve AirBNB of any further responsibility, and I agree not to talk about this payout". That's it.
The AirBNB rep being asleep at the wheel is a real story and pretty lousy - however the NDA feels like a non-story to me.
> It basically says ... and I agree not to talk about this payout"
That's not quite right. When I read the NDA, section 2 is what stuck out to me as an oddity that isn't standard in most settlement agreements. Specifically (emphasis mine):
> I acknowledge that the existence of the payment by Airbnb and this Airbnb Payment Agreement are confidential.
Most settlements make the amount paid a hidden number but doesn't prevent you from discussing that the settlement itself occurred. If Airbnb's NDA simply said that the amount paid wasn't to be discussed, then I'd agree that this would be a non-story. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. IANAL either, but the language used seems pretty cut and dry in the intent that the incident be kept under wraps.
There is no settlement involved, because there is no legal claim, technically. None of the logic around legal settlements comes into play at all, so the devil's advocacy here is misguided. The NDA is outlandish and is clearly designed to shut him up and cover up the mishandling of the case.
This might be different under UK law, but if he had sued you might have a point. Then I'd expect gag, non-disparagement, forefeiture of claims and so on. I've signed those personally and understand that. But if I haven't sued you and you gag me for what I deem fair? Well, sounds like I should potentially sue because someone is not operating in good faith, and it ain't me. That move alone would make me want to discover your internal communications about handling me and in this case, I bet they're awesome.
Keep in mind they're writing him off from saying "they fixed this! They're the good guys!" which sure, seems unlikely, but if a company takes care of something without a lawsuit a gag seems counterintuitive and in bad faith.
I think the logic is pretty much identical. Abnb could, of course, simply refuse to pay anything. His recourse would be to the courts. The most likely outcome of that would be a settlement. The highest-dollar settlement would likely include confidentiality terms.
The incentive structure Abnb is creating here is not great, though: if you know their settlement terms will include confidentiality, and you know they have to settle somehow no matter what, your incentive as the aggrieved party is to get your story on the record immediately, before contacting Abnb, so that what you disclose can't violate their NDA. That's exactly what Abnb doesn't want to have happen.
They should probably just be up front about the fact that they'll pay a bonus to clean up the PR.
Sure. The suit would be public though, and exactly and to your point, wise plaintiffs would be subtly trying their case in the media from day 1, because that gag and non-disparagement is undoubtedly coming. Journos live for David vs. Goliath cases like this. Tossing a contract at me after the case gets a little attention, where I didn't have to sign one for the first payment, makes me wonder what you're hiding.
I totally get the logic you're saying, that they're basically treating it as a settlement, but that maneuver is odd and tips a little of their hand that he should perhaps just go hit the courts. When I was at AT&T they were a little rough settling with someone and she ended up suing, and part of the discovery was her internal notes on the case which blew up the claim by 20x. That's mostly what I'm thinking of, because there are for sure emails that would be very interesting to discover here.
I would only expect that to happen in a case where there's some wiggle room. For example, I might expect it if I settled with an insurance company after a car accident, but I wouldn't expect it if I was obviously owed money by my insurance company.
The case here seems completely cut-and-dried. AirBnB owes this money, so they should pay it, end of story. I'd only expect an NDA if they were paying more than they had to. Thus the question I led with: what's going on? Either AirBnB is trying to pull a fast one here, or the case is not as clean as the story makes it sound.
Then it shouldn't be a "settlement" when you're obviously owed the money and there's no question about it. I don't "settle" every time I get a refund for a defective product or an insurance payout for some covered incident.
> If the person is properly compensated 100%, but keeps talking, it can be argued that their material damage has been fully restored, while they continue to inflict material damage against the other party.
Which they could handle in the same way that they would handle anyone else saying bad things about their brand. We should all have the same freedom of speech, within the same boundaries.
Right, like making them contractually promise to stop talking about it, in exchange for mutually agreed compensation.
As i understand it, Freedom of speech is not violated; you're still free to speak about it without going to government hunting you down. You're just breaking a contract you willingly signed, and have to deal with the ramifications of doing so.
How is that a settlement and not applying their terms and conditions as it should have been the first time ? Maybe even a bribe to shut him up before this has a chance to make headlines.
I have a friend who literally had the exact same experience a week ago. She rented her apartment to a guy for one night, and he proceeded to have a massive party filled with drugs, prostitutes, and God knows what else. Her apartment was subsequently degraded and destroyed beyond all recognition.
Thus far, Airbnb's response to her has been extremely non-reassuring. Hopefully they will do more in the coming week and remedy the situation. If not, expect a longer post with pictures soon.
It's stuff like this that gives Airbnb a bad name, and makes many people hesitant to ever use the service. I hope someone at Airbnb realises that pinching pennies and not helping hosts when they get screwed, is really going to hurt Airbnb itself in the long run.
It's kind of crazy. People really care about their homes, right? So when bad things happen, posting photos like these confirm potential hosts' worst fears about having their place on AirBNB.
I'm surprised that they don't go out of their way to help their hosts (i.e. buying things online was unfamiliar for users, so Amazon typically is pro-consumer any time there is a dispute and refunds your money immediately, in my experience).
Don't EVER rent to anyone for one night - too risky. Only rent for multiple days at a time. I haven't yet heard of any stories of people renting places out for 1 week or more where the place has been trashed. In general, partiers don't have the money to rent for > 1 night (although I would imagine there are exceptions).
I hope you get restitution from AirBNB. I'd be really curious to see what if any action they take against the guests. Unless the guests somehow used fake names it seems like it would be easy for AirBnB to go after them?
Not defending Airbnb's behaviour, but this sort of thing happens outside of Airbnb too. I had some tenants (sons of a well known rock star) cause around £10K worth of damage to my flat in Shoreditch (plus around £5K in lost rent given the amount of time it took to repair) a few years back. In that case the letting agency I used was no help because they said it was a private matter between myself and the tenants, the insurance was no good because they said that amount of damage could not be accidental and they didn't cover malicious damage, and the legal system was no help because it favours tenants. In fact I might even have been better off with Airbnb.
Good point. If you think about it, if everyone was responsible and stuff, these kinds of incidents could be avoided and the system would work so much better. I mean, I know that financially the host might be compensated but personally, the stress of having my home torn apart like that by strangers would be too much for me.
Point taken. Although the original point is that it might happen more than you might think with traditional letting agencies, if you aggregated all of the individual cases over all of the 10s of 1000s of letting agencies in the country. And it might not make the news as much if it happens with traditional letting agencies, given the media tends to like stories which paint new things/technology in a bad light.
How did you resolve it? Did you just eat the loss?
In the US, the best recourse would probably be to sue or file a police report for destruction of property. Neither of those are great options, but they might end up being arrested depending on the municipality.
There is a Small Claims Court in England, with a maximum claim of £10K. I got as far as issuing a Letter Before Action to the tenant's London-based guarantor (the tenant himself hadn't left a forwarding address, and his father is based in the Republic of Ireland where the Small Claims Court has a EUR2K limit), but ended up settling out of court and eating most of the loss.
I don't understand how people could do that much damage and it would only come to $8k. Just the cleanup and repairs to the complex outside of his property should be nearly that much; losing his lease, other damages, and damage to his property should be a lot more than that.
It reads like he only submitted claims for repairs to his apartment (for whatever reason, maybe he wasn't billed for repairs/cleanup outside of it). I'd be surprised if AirBnb would cover him loosing his lease.
Maybe he had renter's insurance or something, or some other form of liability insurance? (I don't know how this works in the UK).
If I were the lessor/host, I'd demand Airbnb pay 100% and then let them go after whichever other parties they want later. The host should not be the one on the hook for any of this, including float for however long reimbursement takes.
(If I were Airbnb I'd probably sue the guest; clearly there was some level of organization if they brought in an audio system and had an event. Even if it cost them $20k in legal to go after a $10k judgment it is probably worth the precedent.)
I'd be surprised if residential renter's insurance in the US, UK, or Canada covered things done during a daily sublet of the space without some special rider policy. This customer should be covered well enough by AirBNB's agreement, which apparently only with the help of The Observer is actually the case.
I think it would be easy for a policy to waive contents insurance in such a case, but a lot more challenging if it waived liability. (Otherwise, as a condo association or whatever, you could be potentially ruined if any condo owner owns a unit, has "full insurance" as required, and sublets/has a guest burn the entire building down.) Insurers have far deeper pockets than individual property owners, guests, or condo associations. It's possible the condo association would have additional liability insurance above and beyond this which would step in, though.
It's quite possible that exterior damage was covered by the insurance of the homeowners/building association. I'd love more information on this case to see if that's true.
If that's the case, it's another example of negative externalities from AirBNB being dumped on the neighbors of a host.
Is it correct that the article asserted damages assessed at USD 8K but offered to reimburse just under USD 2K?
I could be overreacting to this, but I had a really strong reaction to this article. I'll preface relating this by stating that in pretty much everything, I would usually side with the large company or startup. Just my point of view. I'm not overflowing in sympathy for people complaining about dealing with companies or large bureaucracies because in my experience that arises from people's insufficient understanding of how to operate with a company or large bureaucracy to their advantage. Most of the time I'd be like, people should learn to be smarter.
With that disclaimer aside this story made me super angry. How could AirBnB treat this person like that? Clearly guests had defrauded AirBnB's system, and the host suffered. The host should be totally compensated.
If this was my company, in an extreme case like this, I'd send out an AirBnB rep to do a damage assessment and collect evidence. And then, not just to be awesome, but to protect AirBnB against bad PR, and to encourage AirBnB to develop more robust guest fraud detection, I'd compensate as a policy 20 - 25 % over the amount. So this guy would get USD 10K and hands on treatment.
A complication I'm not considering is -- who is owed the damages, the guest or the landlord? But the idea above would be indicative of my response, and how I think they should have done this.
I super hate it to read great PR about AirBnB doing awesome things and then to see something like this. And the dereliction and indifference exhibited by the email chain...so angry. The worst thing is: you can judge a person ( and a company ) by how they treat people they don't think they need to treat well. So when AirBnB makes money out of you, and you use their shiny site, everything is grand. But when you suddenly suffer and need their help, their action falls well below their promise.
Like I said, maybe I'm overreacting or not seeing this clearly. But on the face of what I saw this is how I took this. So angry!
The fact that they're trying to chisel this customer out of a few grand suggests to me that host compensation must be a real cost center for AirBNB... which is actually worse than if it were just really bad customer service, because it means that the chances of this happening to your apartment are much higher than advertised. Neither way, of course, is a good look.
AirBnB is a company I want to IPO more than any other just so I can see their finances. The idea is so simple, so universal, and (theoretically) so profitable that I was surprised that they only just became profitable. I assumed the company had been printing money for years, back before they had to deal with lawsuits, regularly avoided taxes, and when everybody still loved them.
It doesn't surprise me that they're profitable at this stage, but the fact that it took them so long to get there on a completely unlevel playing field (competitors pay taxes, have better customer service, own physical property, etc) makes me seriously concerned about the future prospects of this business.
I obviously don't have the data, but it seems people are growing to like them less and less. Whenever founders have a sense of entitlement (I've met Brian and Joe - they came across as arrogant) it doesn't end well when they suddenly have to play by the same rules as everyone else. AirBnB is way too big that they can shirk the law anymore, and as the public grows to dislike them more their lobbying efforts will become increasingly futile (just look at what happened in New York).
Tangentially, as a guest, I've found a new (to me) use for Airbnb -- renting places in areas I'm considering a long lease or purchase. And for "work from home", it's actually possible to check with hosts and verify good Internet (in WA, Wave G or Frontier FIOS or something), which is a lot harder in hotels.
For 4 APR - 10 MAY in Redmond/Bellevue I have the downstairs of a house (3 bedrooms) with 100/100 FiOS for $2k. I'm fine with that as home + wfh, since it means I can delay signing a 12mo+ lease for 3mo (as I'll be in Ukraine in June/July).
A friend of mine is having similar issues with a neighboring apartment in their building in a more suburban neighborhood of NYC. Large parties of seemingly underage kids have been renting the apartment upstairs, throwing weekend long parties, and trashing the surrounding area (using the side of the house as a bathroom, for instance). The landlord doesn't seem to care since the unit would otherwise be empty and he can make the same rent in a weekend as he would in a month. That building doesn't seem to be the only one doing the same thing in the neighborhood.
I had never really thought of kids using AirBnb like that before, but it makes sense. When I was a teenager parties happened when people's parents went away for the weekend. Now an older kid can get a credit card, create a fake profile, rent an apartment for the weekend, charge a fee at the door, and have at it.
NYC's been cracking down on short-term/airbnb sublets recently so if you can twist the right arm you might be able to get something done.
I recently helped a friend with a housing issue (deadbeat subtenants) and we discovered that the NYC housing court has a great service where you can talk to a housing lawyer for free, might be worth a shot to see if your friend has any legal options: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/vlpselfrep.shtml...
Man, that is bad; totally agree with you DanBC. The third time the AirBnB rep asked for details of the blinds I was gob-smacked that I could have noticed it twice already on a brief scan and they apparently didn't see it - or perhaps it was just a delaying tactic to force the financial situation to become more grave for their client, like you say true Black Mirror stuff.
Then at the end they try to low-ball him on what realistically was probably a tenth of what he seemed to have due (by that stage), giving him a short time-limit - what was it, 24 hours? - to click a button to accept the minimal offer or to "agree" to nothing.
That sort of vile behaviour deserves a company to be sued to within a penny of it's existence IMO.
It's totally sad, but the ignoring of client responses and repeated redundant requests for information already provided, is a standard psychological domination tactic used by interrogators and ( hey, whaddaya know ) compliance people. It's meant to cause the client to become more subdued, submissive and easier to handle.
I hate this kind of thing being used by a company that I wanted to respect.
I truly believe: powerful people ( and companies ) empower others, they don't disempower them.
ignoring of client responses and repeated redundant requests for information already provided, is a standard psychological domination tactic used by interrogators and ( hey, whaddaya know ) compliance people. It's meant to cause the client to become more subdued, submissive and easier to handle.
I can see how this works as an immediate measure, but I wonder how well it works overall.
To give a personal example, I was once screwed out of a non-trivial but not life-changing amount of money by a business that should have known better. They subsequently gave me the run-around, and given the circumstances I strongly suspect that this was a cynical and deliberate practice on their part.
In the end I dropped the issue. This was mostly due to my ignorance at the time of how our legal system worked, which meant the value of my time spent researching small claims procedures was likely to exceed the potential compensation (since you typically don't get any compensation for time spent on the legal proceedings themselves with a small claims action here). For a system meant to avoid wasting a lot of time and incurring a lot of costs in relatively low value cases, it sure was hard to figure out the basics of how it worked and what you had to do in order to use it.
On the other hand, I now do understand more about our system, and I have access to various lawyers and helplines and such. My view now is that a business that screwed up gets polite and constructive communications from me as long as it offers likewise in return. If it was a genuine mistake and they do reasonable things to try to make it right, that will typically be the end of the matter, no hard feelings. However, the moment any business tries to mess me around even slightly, I no longer hesitate or carry on informal discussions that don't seem to be going anywhere useful. The next thing they get is either a letter from me that formally initiates the small claims procedure or a letter from a real lawyer acting on my behalf if it's serious enough, either way clearly setting out my grievance in writing and including a deadline for resolving the matter so it's clear that if they continue to mess me around they will wind up in court.
The consequence of this policy in the years since then has invariably been getting reasonable results almost immediately and without any serious danger of actually getting to court or incurring significant expenses. Most places seem to have a policy that the moment you go legal they have to refer to their own legal department. When they in turn look at the situation properly and see that their business is obviously in the wrong, it seems that SOP is to immediately remove the customer service people from the table and the next thing I receive has normally been an offer to settle on reasonable terms with no admission of anything by either side. Usually settling on reasonable terms is all I wanted in the first place, so apparently this policy is quite successful.
I do slightly pity any business that treats me like that first one in the future, though. I once made the mistake of teaching such a business that it can succeed by doing so, and while I'm well aware of the arguments against litigating on principle, I consider that incident a stain on my karma that can only be balanced by making an example of the next one, as expensively and publicly as the law permits.
Firebombing might have been a bit much but that conversation makes me wonder WTF is going on at AirBNB, it's like two people talking on entirely different wavelengths with the CSR not even taking the most cursory interest in the supplied documents. Incredible, especially given that the host has already done his best to limit the amount.
So essentially AirBNB's guarantee that they cover damage done by guests is hollow.
AirBnB is known for being shady. Everybody knows that many AirBnB listings are illegal but allowed because profit, except when they're silently removed just before public data release[1].
Making a profit over illegal listing is all fun and game until someone dies due to that illegal rental not being up to safety code as with that canadian woman in Taiwan[2] but as long as you conveniently offer 2 millions dollars to the heirs and not mention it the safety report it should not hurt business that much, let's top it with a PR stunt of offering carbon monoxide detector for good measure.
Let's not forget that the host protection was added after a similar trashed apartment PR crisis[3] at first capped at $50,000 then later upgraded to $1,000,000. Let's not forget either that the first answer to the host was that she would not receive any money from AirBnB.
There are numerous horror stories of dealing with AirBnB where the refused to pay until the press runs the story [4], or being evicted due to guest abuse[5], some are more exotic such as using the place for prostitution or this guest turned into squatter that the host had to find a way to evict on her own[6]. There's even a website dedicated to collecting those horror stories: airbnbhell.com
So yeah, if you're unlucky and your AirBnB experience is not smooth, be prepared for more non-smoothness from AirBnB but if your case is high profile enough, going to the press usually helps to solve the case.
It does seem a little like the correct thing to do would have been to split those requested documents out in to individual PDFs or scans, which seems to be what they're asking for, rather than pointing towards one large info pack with elevating rage.
Bribes are generally illegal. This should be "compensates," not "bribes." "Bribes" is just hyperbole. This is standard practice for a lot of businesses in a similar space.
We put quotes around that word in the title. I'll add an explanation here in a bit.
Edit: ok, here's an explanation.
We put quotes around "bribes" because that's the tiniest intervention I can think of that still addresses your concern. Why so tiny? That takes a while to explain, so read on if you want to understand how we approach this.
The title breaks the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) by being both baity and misleading. It also contradicts the article text (assuming I read it correctly), since it declares a thing to have happened which the text itself reports as not having happened, if you read it to the end. Such a bait-and-switch is a marker of a bad article.
Normally the moderation on this would be a no-brainer. We'd replace the title with one that is accurate and neutral, and we'd apply a standard downweight that we put on outrage stories which don't contain anything of intellectual interest, especially when the topic has appeared many times before. If we didn't do these things, HN's front page would consist of nothing but dime-a-dozen outrage and the elves would leave middle earth.
Frankly, it bites to see an article get away with this kind of thing on HN when we spend every day trying to keep the front page good. But that's the price we pay for being able to answer users' concerns about conflicts of interest in moderating HN. It doesn't prevent a few people from saying awful things about us—this is the internet after all—but it does let us answer in good conscience. Doing our best and answering questions seems to be enough to keep most HN users happy, which is the thing we care most about.
FWIW (and I realize what it's W is minimal), despite the shade I sometimes throw re: certain policies on HN, I think you guys do an excellent job of threading the needle with regards to YC-related companies.
He's in a tough position, and I appreciate that he is transparent about it, even though I am still a bit disappointed. Normally I'd be a whole lot more outraged if he _didn't_ disclose his differential treatment towards YC companies, even though I would've definitely suspected and even expected such differential treatment.
I say this as a happy AirBnB host and guest: the article captures the feelings of powerlessness that people often feel when private companies attempt to shirk their obligations, and to do so in a way that is particularly infuriating, insensitive, and manipulative. The proper recourse is legal, but the legal system is prohibitively expensive for anyone who isn't worth tens of millions. So, name and shame it is!
This is the smart way of dealing with this kind of situation. Better have light moderation than risk being seen as taking a partisan stance and protecting your own interest.
Then again bribe does not feel out of place. Offering direct deposit money outside of the official documented channel is akin to giving cash under the table. Even more when the recipient has to ask repeatedly to use the proper channel.
Bribe would be accurate if they were offering payment outside someone else's remediation process.
Apparently payments+NDA are part of the remediation process that they actually set up in practice.
There's also no reason to assume why a private remediation process should be universal and the same for everyone, it's not a court - it would be unfair to close down options that they advertised, but it's completely reasonable to offer extra options on a case-by-case basis if they want, even if they weren't included in the advertised remediation process.
The only thing that's might be viewed as dishonest is that their statement "The Host Guarantee will reimburse eligible hosts for damages up to $1,000,000." doesn't explicitly mention that certain conditions apply on how the Host Guarantee is implemented; though it does say 'eligible hosts' which quite likely is explained in the full Host Guarantee text as 'hosts that, among other things, agree to an NDA'.
If everything is case-by-case and determined by "eligibility," what is the purpose of the word Guarantee here, and funds released are subject to conditions having nothing to do with the actual rental (e.g. an NDA)?
Seems to me, using the words "Guarantee", "Trust" "Peace of Mind" is no different than the customer using the term "Bribe".
but maybe this is just situation where consumers need law degrees to fully understand what it is they are getting.
AirBNB relies on economies of scale, so the remediation process should be the same for everyone since the contract is more than likely the same too, and if it is not, then "Trust", "Guarantee", "Peace of mind" are the wrong words to being used to advertise the service.
The core reason Bribe is being used, is because AirBnB was withholding payment for something that they advertised as part of the service and would only release it in exchange for an NDA. That IS dishonest.
But they ARE honestly fulfilling the guarantee - the host is able to get the requested damages. Yes, it's not an unconditional, no questions asked compensation, but it's not advertised as such. Terms and conditions apply, just as it's reasonable to expect e.g. paperwork and evidence of damages before funds are released. It would be dishonest if they had included terms or conditions that are unreasonable or difficult to fulfil, but an NDA isn't such a condition; it doesn't disqualify anyone who wants to finalize the dispute. Just as it would be very reasonable if the release of funds was conditional on an agreement not to sue for further damages, i.e., that the guarantee happens only if it's agreed to be the final resolution of this matter.
The described events don't seem to violate any promise that was actually advertised, the only mismatch is between reality and wishful thinking.
You may think it is perfectly reasonable to have the customer sign an NDA before the warranty work or guarantee is fulfilled, but I find it dishonest and ridiculous.
What if one day the Airbnb exec privately pockets money for getting someone into an apartment? You've already used "bribe;" where do you go from there?
The problem with hyperbole is you will pay the inflation tax on your word choice. Crying wolf, basically.
Hard to say what I'd do when I haven't been in that situation, but in a past dispute with a large company, I felt I had the freedom to make them pay for their desired confidentiality. (It wasn't quite like this situation, but somewhat similar.)
I demanded a 60% premium over their "final" offer for the confidentiality clause. They told me to take a walk, but reversed and paid after my lawyer contacted them. (the 60% was basically pulled out of my nether bits; it was a wild guess at what they might value it at.)
I'd recommend anyone in a similar situation putting a price tag on the gag clauses, if they can afford it. Aside from many other issues, it is a nasty tactic that is bad for markets, because it increases economic inefficiency by increasing information asymmetry.
IMHO submitting to corporate NDA is wrong. Corporations should be exposed for their wrongdoings so other people can know about it and corporations made into changing their ways.
You'd think Airbnb would be absolutely horrified of stories like this. How many hosts does this incrementally deter from using Airbnb?
Additionally, their SLAs for customer support are incredibly user-hostile, bordering on actively so. Look at how Amazon can do things better - no questions asked refunds and generally 24 hour SLAs on contact.
How can Airbnb fail so hard on realising that an internet business, such as theirs, lives and dies by customer trust...
> How can Airbnb fail so hard on realising that an internet business, such as theirs, lives and dies by customer trust...
Because the founders are arrogant and it's ingrained in the company's culture. This isn't the first story of AirBnB's incompetence in handling customers and the media.
Their official response when asked for comment goes as follows:
--------------------
We emailed Airbnb spokesman Christopher Nulty to ask whether the library ad was "real." He responded by email, "as opposed to a fake one :)"
A follow up email, explaining that we were in fact seeking confirmation as to whether the ads are actually from Airbnb received the following response: "Are you seriously writing on this?"
--------------------
edit: What I find most amazing is that guy is still a Public Affairs Lead for the company. That says a lot about how they operate.
> This was all too reminiscent of the NDA Tesla asked customers to sign last year after a defect was discovered, a request that was deemed “unacceptable” by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (which issued the warning about the defects).
How are the biggest and trendiest companies getting away with this kind of despicable behaviour? The lack of regulation in intervention here is especially troubling.
Why do people find it surprising that companies who exist mainly on the premise of ignoring laws/regulations they find inconvenient, won't eventually ignore laws/regulations that you think worthwhile (ie Uber and sexual harassment and AirBnb and paying for damages).
In addition, I find it interesting that the host is only sending a bill for $8000. It seems as if he is only trying to get paid for his damages and not even considering the damage and disruption to his neighbors (who unlike the host are wholly blameless in this manner). It seems AirBnb attracts the jerks and freeloaders.
> It seems as if he is only trying to get paid for his damages and not even considering the damage and disruption to his neighbors (who unlike the host are wholly blameless in this manner).
I don't agree with this. Obviously, if a bystander's property was damaged, this would be true, however, the idea of being paid for a "disruption" is silly. It's called life and it's full of annoyances. I'd argue the people angling for compensation because they're annoyed probably fall into the jerk and freeloader category more than someone who is willing to forgo reimbursement for his damaged property in order to warn the public about a potential pitfall.
Hey, if some chooses to live next to a hotel then that's there choice. If a unlicensed hotel opens next to them (i.e. an airbnb rental) then they have been impinged on.
AirBnB profits from illegal activity and they have deep pockets for a settlement _and_ want to avoid negative publicity which leads to explicit regulation of STRs. It makes a lot of sense.
That's a slippery slope; if my neighbors plant tulips and I HATE tulips, I don't get to sue for damages, even if the tulips weren't there when I moved in.
Legally, that isn't even remotely a slippery slope. There is a vast difference between a decorative object located solely within one's property which has no effect on neighboring properties, and an for-profit unlicensed/illegal activity which affects the neighbor's safety and use of their abode.
I'm not talking about hotels, I'm talking about the fact that you nor anyone else can tell the future. Your neighbor could start woodworking as a hobby, put in a pool, get a motorcycle, etc. You have no idea what may come, that's my point, and shouldn't expect compensation for inconveniences especially in the case of leasing. Your property value isn't affected, and in fact, it could lead to a decrease in your rent. For you, or whoever is disturbed, your option (as shown in the article) is to call the police. Furthermore, there are plenty of instances of zoning changes leading to hotels or other commercial operations popping up next to someone who did exactly what you suggest i/e living away from a hotel. If you (or whoever) want to be left alone and never be bothered, by a few acres of land, otherwise expect that at any point in time, you may end up being bothered.
Look, I get what you're saying and where you're coming from, and in theory, it sounds reasonable, but in practice (real life) it just doesn't happen that way.
> Your neighbor could start woodworking as a hobby [...] and shouldn't expect compensation for inconveniences especially in the case of leasing.
If by doing so causes noise, and the circumstances are unreasonable (e.g. woodworking through the night), a claim could certainly be made under nuisance. An injunction to cease the unreasonable behaviour (e.g. only allowing noise to be made during certain hours) would be the primary remedy, but monetary damages for, e.g., loss of sleep are also possible.
>It seems AirBnb attracts the jerks and freeloaders.
It is up to the person that wants to Airbnb her/his place to make sure the people who are taking residence in her/his property are decent. It is not Airbnb who attracts the jerks and freeloaders.
With that said, their handling of this scenario (assuming everything that has been said in the article linked is true) was not good.
How does a potential AirBnB "landlord" ensure the potential "tenant" isn't going to wreck the house? In a normal year-long lease, you can run background checks, credit checks, verify employment. Are you really suggesting we should do that for a weekend long AirBnB?
> I find it interesting that the host is only sending a bill for $8000. It seems as if he is only trying to get paid for his damages and not even considering the damage and disruption to his neighbors
Could be related to the fact that those are not covered by the AirBnB guarantee:
What’s not protected?
The Host Guarantee should not be considered a replacement
or stand-in for homeowners or renters insurance. The Host
Guarantee does not protect:
cash and securities
pets
personal liability
shared or common areas
In the UK it's nearly unheard of to be suing for anything other than material/health damages. An unspecified "disruption to neighbours" is worth exactly zero in court.
This is not the case. Disruption to neighbours could result in a claim of nuisance (things such as physical invasion of the land, noise, and smells all potentially give rise to nuisance).
I find it shocking that someone thought it was a good idea to list a flat on airbnb that they're only renting themselves. Largely in England subletting is not allowed under the terms of rental agreements.
Yeah, that's one thing I wasn't clear on from the story, whether or not the host was violating the terms of his lease.
It's not just in England. In the US, while subleasing is sometimes allowed it is almost always forbidden for short-term rentals. Many landlords now include explicit "no AirBnB renters" clauses in leases as AirBnB has become more popular.
Their business model seems to rely on people willing to roll the dice on their safety and security to save (or earn) a few bucks! It will undoubtedly survive this little blip of negative publicity, but people really need to be wary of this organization's complete lack of customer service (when things go bad).
A few years ago I was going to do exactly what the guy in the article did, was going to put my own place on Airbnb when I was away, never did in the end, but it was something I was always interested in doing, I remember reading AirBnb's host insurance policy and they seemed very fair if something bad had happened to my place, but if they don't payout, it's as good as useless.
So after reading this, not a chance I'll ever list. (maybe in a few years if I hear its turned around, maybe)
Am I the only one disgusted by the canned replies from Airbnb to Luciano? The guy had his home ruined and all Peter from Airbnb can talk about is file format requirements. Where is the empathy?
Of course it's deliberate. AirBnB's business model is to achieve profit margin by cheating laws and contracts, and facilitating their customers doing same.
there are endless stories like this with AirBNB. They are right in that they have millions of successful bookings and these one-off scenarios are the exception to the rule, but they are being very unprofessional in the way they handle these matters. I would lawyered up as soon as they started dickin me around.
"They barricaded themselves inside with 14 police officers being unable to get them out until morning.”
What? In America (god bless thee) police would have broken down doors and pepper sprayed those monsters, hopefully a few billy clubs to the head as well and arrested them all.
You are scum, Airbnb. I don't care that you are a YC company.
You profit by making and end-run around decades of law and regulation -- much in place for a purpose and to make the lives of long-term tenants and owners tolerable and predictable.
It sounds as if you've now also gone full-on into the typical modern corporate "customer support" model.
Everything driven by lawyers and "risk minimization." Purposeful process dysfunction to discourage and kill as many claims and as much financial demand as possible. Support staff who know nothing of the circumstances and who furthermore refuse to inform themselves as to same. Escalating pressure to accept low-ball settlements with included gag-provisions, when the more persistent claimants don't simply give up. Real, effective response and recompense dependent upon the level of "bad PR" and perceived need for "damage control."
Unless I've overlooked something, the NDA seems to work largely against Airbnb. It limits their liability to this payment, and compels the host to provide "reasonable cooperation", but on confidentiality it only states:
> I acknowledge that the existence of the payment by Airbnb and this Airbnb Payment Agreement are confidential.
There seems to be nothing stopping the host from continuing to assert "Airbnb customers wrecked my flat; Airbnb provided terrible support and miscalculated damages".
Why is this a bribe and not a settlement compensation offer? Good luck settling with your insurance company or an employer without signing an NDA and forgoing future action.
I'm surprised they were able to lock themselves inside and party even with the police trying to get them out. I feel like that wouldn't be possible in the U.S.
I don't see the appeal of airb&b. I don't want strangers in my home when i am not there to monitor my stuff. That's crazy. And i keep horror stories like this, just read one about a trashed apt in toronto. And i travel a lot and when i do i go through established agencies for rentals. I'm in Bali now, got a great house for a good price through traipadvisor.
Why don't homeowner's and renter's insurance policies have short term rental exclusion clauses? This type of damage seems like a source of expensive claims.
I believe they do. That's why AirBnB advertises the policy mentioned in the article. The problem is AirBnB appears to make it very difficult to make a successful claim.
Airbnb guests constantly rent my place to party. It's been a problem for years, at both of my homes. I block many of them, but can't detect them all. The other day an airbnb guest held a party, and they trashed my neighbor's balcony (below mine).
They need to get partying off the platform. It's terrible for neighbors and hosts, and it's not even much revenue; the partiers usually book for one night. Regular guests on average stay 4-5 nights.
There should be a separate "AirBnB for parties and events" option. If I had a space designed for such activities, being able to rent it out on the same platform would be great.
Many event rooms can be reserved simply by guaranteeing a minimum bar spend - if your attendees spend a few hundred pounds, you needn't pay anything at all.
Of course, if you want to bring your own booze, openly use illegal drugs, invite guests who are under the legal drinking age, or have access to beds, you might choose to rent an apartment anyway.
Seems like most of the complaints about Airbnb that result in new ordinances banning short term rentals probably originate from bad guests (or irresponsible hosts who allow bad behavior and ignore the impact to their neighbor's peace) who are ruining it for everyone else.
What regulations are you referring to that would prevent this?
You can just as easily book a hotel and throw a party there and do all sorts of damage. They don't take much of a deposit either (or they hold a card) because there's a fine line between protecting yourself and a sensible amount for your average guest.
The problem here is that AirBnB takes a good chunk of a booking and doesn't do much to vet guests. They also haven't shown to be friendly and trusting with hosts that make claims even though they market a policy to protect larger losses to make you feel more willing to add your home to the pool.
I've been lucky; only had a few bookings I wouldn't want back and mostly they just destroy the hot tub with spilled drinks and I have to refill it. I try to avoid one-night stays as much as possible. I set a higher deposit too to filter our the partiers and don't do instant book. They'll choose a place with a lower deposit and instant-book instead. I also have 3 outdoor cameras so I can see what's going on at my place and how many people are showing up. I'm legally approved to sleep 16. So if it gets crazy; I'll call the police.
I think it's stupid to rent out a condo unless you vet every guest manually. However, I'd still ban it if I was on their HOA. It's a real security issue. You have to trust the person who books and everyone they bring. AirBnB should enact a sizable fine for exceeding their approved guests. Then we could just submit video/image evidence of how many people came and AirBnB could hit the guest with the fine and not be so stingy with their "insurance" policy for hosts.
don't think regulations will help, but this definitely does: hotels can charge the renters' credit cards for damage done to the property, but airbnb hosts cannot do that to renters. so the risk to the hotel is minimized. i'm sure if someone damages a room so badly that they have to refurnish the whole thing, they'll happily bill the guest for replacement, item delivery, labour, yield loss, the whole thing - mark up the whole repair job the same way they mark up the peanuts in the minibar.
the other thing that helps is that whatever happens in a hotel is not happening to a place of permanent residence- someone's home. if partygoers cause damage that spills into my room, I can get another room. if partygoers next door cause damage that spills into my house, i'm out of luck (not to mention so is the host).
What kind of settings do you have for reservations? Are you doing any kind of screening of guests? Forcing guests to register their passport on Airbnb and/or asking a bit about what they do for a living tends to be a decent signal for whether or not they will trash your place.
It's sad that you abuse your neighbors by treating your home as an unlicensed hotel and allow random people in for short-term rentals without proper vetting or supervision. If I was your neighbor I would certainly complain to the HOA, complex management, or city code enforcement to have you fined or evicted. Hopefully you at least paid for the cleanup and repair, with some additional compensation for their trouble.
Well, aside from your issues above, "It's terrible for my neighbors, but I keep doing it, even though it's not much money" certainly isn't going to win any friends.
My neighbors don't have a problem with me running the airbnb. They do it themselves, too, or at least like having the option to. The balcony was a mess but it wasn't damaged, nor did it cost anything to clean.
Hmmm...actually the most clearly unethical act was not the low ball offer, the deadlines, or the non-disclosure request--it was the repeated insistence by "Peter" that "the decision reached in this case is final, and cannot be overturned" which is a blatant lie.
The Airbnb Host Guarantee clearly lays out an arbitration process in case of any dispute.
General. You and Airbnb agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Airbnb Host Guarantee Terms or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof, or to the use of the Services or use of the Site or Application (collectively, “Disputes”) will be settled by binding arbitration. You acknowledge and agree that you and Airbnb are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class action lawsuit, class-wide arbitration, private attorney-general action, or any other representative proceeding. Further, unless both you and Airbnb otherwise agree in writing, the arbitrator may not consolidate more than one person’s claims, and may not otherwise preside over any form of any class or representative proceeding. If this specific paragraph is held unenforceable, then the entirety of this “Dispute Resolution” section will be deemed void. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, this “Dispute Resolution” section will survive any termination of these Airbnb Host Guarantee Terms.
Arbitration Rules and Governing Law. This agreement to arbitrate evidences a transaction in interstate commerce, and thus the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision. The arbitration will be administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in accordance with the Consumer Arbitration Rules (the “AAA Rules”) then in effect, except as modified by this “Dispute Resolution” section. (The AAA Rules are available at http://www.adr.org or by calling the AAA at +1 800 778 7879.) The Federal Arbitration Act will govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Section.
Arbitration Process. A party who desires to initiate arbitration must provide the other party with a written Demand for Arbitration as specified in the AAA Rules. (The AAA provides a form Demand for Arbitration. https://www.adr.org/cs/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=A... ) The arbitrator will be either a retired judge or an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California and will be selected by the parties from the AAA’s roster of consumer dispute arbitrators. If the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator within seven (7) days of delivery of the Demand for Arbitration, then the AAA will appoint the arbitrator in accordance with the AAA Rules.
Arbitration Location and Procedure. Unless you and Airbnb otherwise agree, the arbitration will be conducted in the county where you reside. If your claim does not exceed $10,000, then the arbitration will be conducted solely on the basis of documents you and Airbnb submit to the arbitrator, unless you request a hearing or the arbitrator determines that a hearing is necessary. If your claim exceeds $10,000, your right to a hearing will be determined by the AAA Rules. Subject to the AAA Rules, the arbitrator will have the discretion to direct a reasonable exchange of information by the parties, consistent with the expedited nature of the arbitration.
Arbitrator’s Decision. The arbitrator will render an award within the time frame specified in the AAA Rules. The arbitrator’s decision will include the essential findings and conclusions upon which the arbitrator based the award. Judgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The arbitrator’s award damages must be consistent with the terms of the “Disclaimers and Limitations of Liability” section above as to the types and the amounts of damages for which a party may be held liable. The arbitrator may award declaratory or injunctive relief only in favor of the claimant and only to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by the claimant’s individual claim. If you prevail in arbitration you will be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, to the extent provided under applicable law. Airbnb will not seek, and hereby waives all rights it may have under applicable law to recover, attorneys’ fees and expenses if it prevails in arbitration.
Arbitration Fees. Your responsibility to pay any AAA filing, administrative and arbitrator fees will be solely as set forth in the AAA Rules. However, if your claim for damages does not exceed $75,000, Airbnb will pay all such fees unless the arbitrator finds that either the substance of your claim or the relief sought in your Demand for Arbitration was frivolous or was brought for an improper purpose (as measured by the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)).
That first tweet is about Uber. Uber is not a YC investment.
It's also one of the most heavily discussed topics on HN, so it's hard to understand what's being claimed there.
The idea that HN "buries stories about [YC] investments" is one some people assume must be true—as you did, for example, in your use of the word 'fact' above. But the truth is the opposite. When stories are negative about YC or YC-funded companies, we moderate them less, not more, than we otherwise would. I've posted about this plenty of times, e.g.
recently at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13861389.
For example, consider the current post. This is not a good HN story, because it doesn't describe anything of intellectual interest. It also has a baity and misleading title, which breaks the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. But we haven't penalized it, and we haven't replaced the title other than to put quotation marks around "bribes", in response to a user's objection. Intervening less in such cases, even at the expense of HN's quality, is the price we pay for being able to answer comments like yours and the GP's in good faith.
This might be a new policy now that you're the head moderator, but the reason this complaint pops up every time there's a negative post about a YC company is because for several years there was a noticeable, nearly 100% correlation between "negative post about a YC company" and "gone from the front page within 3 hours despite dozens or even hundreds of upvotes."
It isn't a new policy; as I've posted elsewhere in the thread, "moderate HN less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved" is literally the first thing pg taught me about how to moderate HN. In fact he blurted it at me before I even had a chance to grab a chair.
I doubt these complaints pop up because of years ago, though. People just assume that's how it works whether it does that way or not, and confirmation bias does the rest, i.e. we notice the data points that match our assumptions much more than ones that don't. Plus it's fun to trade those with others who share the same view.
Dan has been the head moderator for years, and was a moderator long before it was public that he was. PG was more capricious with moderation than Dan was, but when Dan says Paul Graham believed not showing favoritism to YC was a priority of his, I believe him.
Say what you want about anybody else at YC, but Dan is one of the most trustworthy people in show business. If he says a story didn't get suppressed by the mods, bank on that.
>If he says a story didn't get suppressed by the mods, bank on that. //
I don't really doubt you tptacek, nor indeed doubt dang, but this is a problem with closed moderation we can't see whether YC manipulates the rankings to their benefit financially or otherwise and for those people who don't know you or dang personally there's little provable trust to be carried by such comments as you've made here.
No. "which came to a total cost of around £6,400 (about $8,000)" (from TFA).
I'm arguing more for $50k+. The GBP/USD difference isn't significant.
(For anything less than $10k or so, as long as it was at all substantiated, AirBNB should just pay -- at worst, ban the host. The PR hit from this article is probably $500k already?)
It doesn't take many full-time rentals to be pulled to make $500k, especially with the type of halo properties that AirBnB probably loves to list.
But who would also be a bit concerned after reading an article that AirBnB's damage guarantee wasn't followed through on in a clear and reasonable manner.
"Many" is such a relative term in this context, your comment basically has no meaning. I doubt we'll ever be able to quantify the damage, one way or another, that this story has caused AirBnB.
Perhaps in a vain effort to get someone else to give me a sanity check, is this story not incredible for some additional reasons beyond the terrible AirBnB response? I feel like everyone's just taking for granted the things the guest did in the rental space, but how the hell does someone get away with behaving like that, ever?
Shouldn't the guest and his fellow partygoers all be in jail? They ignored/disobeyed the orders of police officers, refused to vacate a private residence after clearly breaching contract (IANAL, I don't know the precise terms here), violating what i assume to be plenty of noise statues... Shouldn't the owner of the rental space also be going after the person/people responsible for trashing his home (responsible being defined here as the literal people who did the damage)?
What this is telling me is that there's simply no way for an AirBnB host to ever come after me for doing anything in their home. That can't be true...
A lot of confusing points to this story. I'm not defending AirBnB, but this story does baffle on a number of levels.
> (they came with a professional sound system)
How do you not see this coming, from a host perspective? Big red flag. How this get anywhere near as far as it did? "Well I figured the professional sound system was going to be fine in my apartment complex."
> Neighbors called the police five times and some partiers left, but most remained and locked themselves inside to continue partying.
If the police want to enter a home, and the owner of the home agrees to it, since when do the people in the home get a say as to whether or not the police can/cannot enter?
AirBnB handled this very poorly, but why is AirBnB fully responsible for this? I get that they're trying to attract people to put their homes on their service, and they offer to be responsible, but why can't Dinulescu go after the idiots who did this to his apartment directly? Why can't AirBnB do that?
How can a person go into another person's home, as a guest, do something like this, and not be held responsible, either civilly or criminally?
Because they are literally committing to it as part of their service offering:
>We’re committed to creating a safe and trusted community around the world. Though property damage is rare, we understand you may need protection. The Host Guarantee will reimburse eligible hosts for damages up to $1,000,000.
The reason Dinulescu doesn't go after the idiots directly is the same reason you go through insurance companies when there is damage - because that is the service you are paying them for.
Now, AirBnB can absolutely go after the guests, but they have to decide if it is worth it. It is going to cost resources and money (probably more than the $8000 they are paying), and there is still a good chance that the guests won't be able to pay them back anyway. It is probably not worth it.
That's a good point, but still shouldn't these people be held criminally liable? I feel like they went well above what any local law would allow for their behavior.
The police should really go out of their way to make examples out of the partiers. Charge them for every single act of vandalism, drug use, public intoxication, public urination, assault, battery, disturbing the peace, etc., and seek the maximum sentence for every one of them.
And for the official guests who actually rented the room and threw the party, charge them under organized crime and racketeering laws. After all, they organized a group of people to come to a rental property and commit numerous crimes. The police's explicit goal should be to Swartz them.
I would assume that the host/Observer only found out about the professional sound system after the party! Not exactly something a shady guest would inform the host about up front.
I am also puzzled why the guest isn't being pursued for the damages, though. Surely AirBnB can pull up the guest's reservation information and pass it to the authorities? This would seem a fair response given that the police were called so many times.
Airbnb is at fault because they do nothing to discourage partying on the platform. As a host, I am in a never-ending battle to keep partiers out of my home.
Okay sure, that's a fair point, but are you really not finding this story to be fairly incredible? I just find it astounding that a group of partiers could possibly even lock themselves in a home they're being kicked out of and the police wouldn't be able to dislodge them, and then on top of that none of the partiers would be charged or held responsible in any way.
I guess I'd rely on my government to protect me at this point, to some degree.
[ps]
Airbnb's statement concluding this story says that this interaction fell short of their expectations. Maybe they can go a bit farther. Can they commit (just a comment here would suffice) to not using the exploding-settlement tactic with their clients? Maybe all they'd really need to say is that nobody outside their counsel's office will ever be authorized to put an explicit time limit on any offered settlement.