#1 is "a purpose" but not a good one. If hotels can't compete with Airbnb renters then that's their problem (assuming the regulatory playing field is level, which it may not be)
That being said, its still a valid point...hotel customers need "protection" from unscroupulous "hoteliers" becase, for example, they are tourists from a foreign country or small-town USA etc and are thus less sophisticated and make easy prey (historically) for scam-artists (bait ans switch rooms, or general hold-up probelms, etc).
The Interesting question is this: Does the transparency and accountability of Online provide adequate protection? If it does not, does it have the potential to? Back in the day (like, pre-ww2) its easy to imagine things going on in hotels that hurt clients but were "behind the scenes" with no proof other than he-said-she-said. But now we have e-mail, terms of service, electronic booking, CCTV and other things that might change the calculus a bit--at the public policy level.
Open for debate, at least.
Yes, of course, I mean protected from the government, but I also mean protected from customers, and protected from less scrupulous competition (which may be uncomfortably close to the point that tlrobinson was trying to make, but you have to understand that the airbnb owners are generally not following the same rules that the hotels are required to).
I am just waiting for the first time someone gets sued because they didn't post the rates and a map to the fire escape on the back of the door.
Arguably a sub-letted property needs to be habitable (landlord to let), so this should be ~covered. And with "yelp" style reviews hopefully discloure is possible (ie, are the linens Ok or is there mold etc). But there are some things that have health considerations...cross-contamination, rodents, etc. And who is responsible? Is this OK at "caveat emptor"?
These are interesting fundamental questions about how much its possible for private contracts to work with/out Gov't regulation. Its exciting to think about ways to solve these problems (ie, not just gloss them over) with technology rather than with politics/bureaucrats, etc. That is: if it is possible, or not.
These same arguments apply to family and friends coming for a visit and crashing at your place. Or to a kid's sleep-over for that matter.
> From your mother-in-law to the UPS delivery guy, when someone else sets foot on your property, you could be liable if they’re injured, whether you did anything to cause the injury or not.
http://budgeting.thenest.com/can-sued-somebody-getting-hurt-...
Due to the US notion of "join and several liability", one would imagine in such cases that both the renter and the landlord would be sued by the guest, and in the end it would likely be the landlord (who probably moves larger amounts of money) that would end up paying, requiring them to get it back from the renter.
I imagine this is one of the reasons (in addition to situations involving squatters, etc. <-) why many rental agreements actually have limits on the ability for you to even have guests that stay for more than a few days at a time more often than every few weeks or months.
The situations really aren't comparable - in the same way that (topically) giving a ride to a friend isn't comparable to running a taxi service.
Framing it as an absurd, antiquated law is hardly charitable.
It does suggest that looking at these laws en-toto and updating them for modern living (lifestyles, technology, etc) might warranted. And that updates might-be net-beneficial to society. Its not clear they need whole-sale revision thought.
We're going through this now with e-mail and cloud privacy laws that are out of date, too. Its not just a cheap shot at one state or one industry.
We already have laws that govern private contracts between individuals, protect private property, and protect individuals from being an undue burden on one another.