Airbnb “Bribes” Host with Cash Under NDA After Partiers Destroy Apartment
observer.com
observer.com
[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.
---
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].
[1]: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/novembe...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
As long as things go well it's fine. The moment there's a problem it's a nightmare.
https://bkpk.me/why-the-risk-of-airbnb-is-not-worth-it-anymo...
> 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.
When will perception of SV be worse than that of finance?
http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-harvested-craigslist-t...
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.
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 ...
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.
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2012/novembe...
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.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0k9tVdZvR1NUEtFTDZQUTQxZlk...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like I said, a gag smells when there's no suit.
There might not be a lawsuit, but this sure sounds like a legal claim.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe it's a more UK thing?
Here's one example around employment law, but similar clauses exist for pre-trial payouts of no fault "damages". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9967899/Gagging-ord...
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.
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).
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.
It's the same difference as owner occupancy vs renters, but taken to the next order of magnitude.
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.)
If that's the case, it's another example of negative externalities from AirBNB being dumped on the neighbors of a host.
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!
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).
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...
https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/emailexchang...
It's amazing he didn't go and firebomb AirBnB. This kind of communication would leave me incandescent with rage.
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.
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.
that describes some of the managers/clients i've worked for. a very effective technique.
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.
So essentially AirBNB's guarantee that they cover damage done by guests is hollow.
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.
[1]: http://insideairbnb.com/how-airbnb-hid-the-facts-in-nyc/ and https://www.recode.net/2016/2/10/11587752/did-airbnb-purge-p...
[2]: http://www.aswllp.com/content/images/Taming-The-Digital-Wild...
[3]: http://allthingsd.com/20110801/airbnb-apologizes-and-offers-... and https://techcrunch.com/2011/07/29/airbnb-victim-speaks-again...
[4]: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-an-airbnb-guest-trashed-a...
[5]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/airbnb-orgy_n_49788...
[6]: http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-host-cant-get-squatter...
Instead of simply offering payment in exchange for the damage per their guarantee, they wanted something in return: Silence.
The problem with hyperbole is you will pay the inflation tax on your word choice. Crying wolf, basically.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribe
I am using the word correctly. Perhaps you should consider if you're interpretation of the word is not biased?
Frankly, if you want to have an argument over the semantics of language and the interpretation of words, you need to be on top of your writing.
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'.
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.
The described events don't seem to violate any promise that was actually advertised, the only mismatch is between reality and wishful thinking.
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.
However, when the story is negative about YC or a YC-funded company, the regular rules don't apply; we still moderate, but we do it less. That is the first thing pg taught me about how to moderate HN, and the first thing I've taught every other moderator. I've written about this many times: e.g. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=... and https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&date....
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
http://archives.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/10/21/passive-ag...
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.
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.
and, sometimes, elected leaders openly endorse defiance of regulations. it makes a politician look courageous and important.
behavioral constraints are out. freedom is in. we just have to get used to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey...
Despicable behavior is the history of business
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance_in_English_law#Privat...
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.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/quiet+enjoymen...
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.
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 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.
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 areasIt'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.
Lots of crazy stories!
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).
Though this is a repeat of history as this has happened before, for example with the guy that got bitten by a rottweiler[1].
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/your-money/questions-abou...
archive of page. adds were crashing my browser.
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 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."
I hope you have your Uber moment -- soon.
> 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.
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.
But I'm not convinced that's how politics works.
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.
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).
[1] https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/59/how-do-i-add-a-securi...
This thing took place in London, a market which is reasonably well supplied with such things.
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.
Free time!? You're not getting that time back you know, perhaps it cost little; I gather from this you're not an experienced landlord.
The Airbnb Host Guarantee clearly lays out an arbitration process in case of any dispute.
https://www.airbnb.com/terms/host_guarantee
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)).
Edit: I'm impressed how my bad reading comprehension spawned so many replies.
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?)
I highly doubt that.
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.
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...
But if they've done this 12+ times, and "saved" ~$42k each time, then they're still ahead. It wouldn't surprise me.
It does seem like a small amount of the amount of damages that happened.
> which came to a total cost of around £6,400 (about $8,000)
> (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?
I guess I'd rely on my government to protect me at this point, to some degree.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you think it's easier to chase down a few random citizens, or a multi-billion dollar company that accepts liability for damages?