Chicago Business - Your neighbor isn't a business

There are benefits to being a traditional car-rental company that platforms like Turo don’t have. Traditional car-rental companies get all of what they charge for renting a vehicle. On Turo, the bulk of the money goes to the car owner and the platform only gets a small portion of the fee. Traditional car-rental companies get millions in tax subsidies, grants and federal bailouts. Individual car owners don’t. In fact, NetChoice estimates that rental companies avoid paying $3.2 billion annually in state sales taxes, while Turo estimates that its hosts have paid over $455 million in state sales taxes when they purchased their personal vehicles.

NetChoice Opposition to Baltimore City Council Ordinance 18-0189

NetChoice Opposition to Baltimore City Council Ordinance 18-0189

New York City Passes Short-Term Rental Bill, Outsourcing Legal Enforcement Burden to Internet Platforms Like Airbnb, Homeaway & VRBO

Rules Will Imperil Short-Term Renters from Springfield Gardens to Hell’s Kitchen

NEW YORK, July 18, 2018 – The future of short-term rentals (STRs) throughout New York City was put at risk today by New York City Council’s passing of Int. 9081 placing legal enforcement responsibilities on Internet home sharing platforms like Airbnb, HomeAway and VRBO.

 

The proposal would:

  • place a minimum fine of $1,500 on STR platforms every time a property owner makes inaccurate claims on a short-term rental post regardless of intention;
  • require platforms to obtain, manage and certify that every property owner is abiding by local jurisdiction or homeowners association rules;
  • require short-term rental platforms to share all private transaction data, such as bank account numbers, with government agencies.

 

“New York City risks the sensitive financial data of its residents and tourists by forcing them to hand over bank account numbers to government agencies,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at NetChoice.

“The city’s latest anti-tech action threatens New Yorkers’ privacy and financial security, forcing many to choose between protecting their financial information and paying their mortgage.”

“New York is once again going after short-term rentals by mandating hefty requirements on platforms, many of which could be illegal,” continued Szabo. “The City Council’s proposed rules would burden New Yorkers who use STR platforms to help make ends meet.”

 

About NetChoice

NetChoice is a trade association of eCommerce and online businesses that share the goal of promoting convenience, choice, and commerce on the net.

Reason Magazine - America's Biggest Rental Car Company Is Lobbying to Drive Away Competitors

“If the city could force Turo owners to pay these exorbitant airport fees, then it could likewise impose the fee on anyone driving into SFO to pick up friends or family,” says Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice, a trade association of online businesses that advocates for consumer freedom. “That’s ridiculous. But so is the aim of this lawsuit.”

“The relationship between rental car companies and state governments often goes both ways. In nearly every state, cars purchased by such companies are not subject to sales tax. NetChoice estimates that this tax break saves them as much as $3 billion annually. Just in California, where other residents have to pay a 7.25 percent tax on the price of a new car, it saved rental car companies more than $560 million in 2016. Peacock argues that if state governments want a level playing field, they should consider giving all residents access to the same exemption.”

Technology & Marketing Law Blog – Challenge to Santa Monica’s “Anti-Airbnb” Law Dismissed–Homeaway v. Santa Monica

Technology & Marketing Law Blog – Challenge to Santa Monica’s “Anti-Airbnb” Law Dismissed–Homeaway v. Santa Monica

Opening Brief from Airbnb/HomeAway. Amicus briefs in support of Airbnb/HomeAway from NetChoice, Copia, and Internet companies.

NetChoice Opposition to NYC Council Bill Int. No. 981 – Restrictions on Short-Term Rentals

NetChoice Opposition to NYC Council Bill Int. No. 981 – Restrictions on Short-Term Rentals

Santa Monica Ordinance Threatens Future of Online Platforms, NetChoice ‘Friend of the Court’ Brief To 9th Circuit Says

Fines and Jail Time for Website Employees

if Users Fail to Register with City

Washington, DC, April 25, 2018 – A Santa Monica ordinance, which forces online platforms to independently investigate and ensure every person with a listing on its website complies with the city’s licensing requirements, could be a death blow to web-based home sharing, ridesharing and a host of other online platforms, NetChoice and former Congressman Chris Cox (R-CA) argued in a in a joint “friend of the court” brief filed today in the case of HomeAway and Airbnb v. City of Santa Monica.

Cox, author of a federal law that makes such ordinances illegal, and NetChoice urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to invalidate the ordinance.

HomeAway and Airbnb require all persons listing a rental on their websites to acknowledge they are following all local laws. However, Santa Monica would hold the online platforms liable even if they were misled by property owners. The penalty?  Employees at Airbnb and HomeAway could face fines and jail time.

The Cox-NetChoice brief explains how Santa Monica Ordinance 2535CCS violates federal law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1998).

“The Santa Monica ordinance effectively transfers each homeowner’s legal responsibility to the internet platform. This clearly violates Section 230,” said Chris Cox, author of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “Sites such as Airbnb and HomeAway are matchmakers, bringing together homeowners and visitors.  Their service is national in scope.  When a family in Ohio plans a vacation in California or Florida or Maine, they expect Internet listings in these venues and more.  And that is what the Internet delivers:  it has allowed millions of homeowners across the country to list on these sites while millions of potential visitors have gained immediate, free access to those listings.

“Requiring the websites to review each of these listings one at a time,” Cox added, “will eliminate the very benefits consumers expect from the Internet.  It is the homeowners’ responsibility to ensure they comply with all local rules and ordinances.  Making the Internet intermediary liable for the website users’ legal responsibilities is what Section 230 rightly prohibits,” Cox concluded.

Section 230 protects online platforms from legal liability for user-generated content. Often termed “the most important internet law you’ve never heard of,” it is the law behind “Internet 2.0”. Without it, websites like Yelp, eBay, Facebook, and YouTube would not have gotten off the ground.

The impact of the Santa Monica ordinance could be widespread, setting a legal precedent that would undermine ecommerce.

“This is the slipperiest of slopes that Santa Monica is climbing. Do we hold clothing retailers responsible for manufacturers who may lie to them about child labor practices or mislead them about their fabrics?” said Steve DelBianco, president and CEO of NetChoice. “If Santa Monica wins, online platforms will face new costs and liability risks endangering an industry that has enabled millions of Americans to earn extra income from their homes.”

“The City seems to want to Make Bulletin Boards Great Again, by saddling marketplaces with new criminal liability,” DelBianco added.

Below are two excerpts from the brief:

  • “The Ordinance requires Airbnb and HomeAway to review each individual posting on its website and check it against “a Registry of licensed home-sharing operators in the City.” Defendant’s Opp. to Preliminary Injunction at 14-15.  This is exactly what Section 230 prohibits.” p.12
  • “If further proof were needed that the Ordinance requires a one-at-a-time review of every online listing, it may be found in the criminal sanctions for noncompliance. Not only are they harsh ― the penalties for an Airbnb or HomeAway employee include half a year in jail ― but they are specifically imposed on a per-violation basis. §6.20.100(a).  Each rental by an unlicensed website user constitutes a separate violation.” P.14

NetChoice Amicus Brief in HomeAway & Airbnb v. City of Santa Monica

NetChoice Amicus Brief in HomeAway & Airbnb v. City of Santa Monica

NetChoice Opposition to Maryland HB 1810 – Limited Residential Lodging

NetChoice Opposition to Maryland HB 1810 – Limited Residential Lodging

NetChoice Opposition to Hawaii HB 2605 – Limited Residential Lodging and Exposing Hawaiian Privacy

NetChoice Opposition to Hawaii HB 2605 – Limited Residential Lodging and Exposing Hawaiian Privacy