3 ms·

Kinda surprised that no one is debating jurisdiction here. Why federal and not state courts? Are federal judges more friendly to this type of case?

• wvenable 10y ago
  Isn't it federal law that they are using to defend against this?
  • abannin 10y ago
    Yes, but there is a tactical decision at play here. AirBnB seems to believe that it has a better chance of winning on privacy and user-generated content issues then state/local laws.
• youngButEager 10y ago
  Good point. And the Federal court may actually stipulate that by saying "this is not a matter of Constitutional rights -- it is merely a challenge to a local ordinance and must therefore be contested in that jurisdiction." AirBnB probably knew they'd lose locally, so either they thought "we'll end up appealing anyway, let's go right to the Feds" or "let's make a longshot stab at a 1st Amendment rights claim and avoid the local court." They stand to lose at either level, because the SCOTUS has already weighed in on "the local government took unlawful control over my real property" -- a rent-controlled NYC landlord's case was turned down by the Justices a couple years back from even being considered in the Supreme Court. And there are standing regulations already in place for hotels and motels. AirBnb doesn't have a chance here, really. The faux taxi services are somehow skating from being held to the bar for being illegal taxi services, but probably not for long.