4 ms·

The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB (except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it). From 803(b): (b)Nothing in se

The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB (except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it). From 803(b): (b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:... (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. Section 804 is what you quoted.) (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence. So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone, none of this actually applies to me.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below. > Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:... (Note that lots of AirBnB rentals of single-family homes are not by the owner, and thus not within this exception even before considering the limitations on the exception.) > (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. [...]) And you shouldn't have, because the part that you snipped is all limitations on the part of the you quoted, including the most important one: "Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; [...]" The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception.
- jasode 10y ago
  >The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception. I don't think it would be. The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition to help the law pin down properties that are "commercial". In other words, if you're paying the high price of contracting a broker, you're 99.99% likely not to be renting out a personal bedroom. The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker. As far as I can tell, very few people including states' general attorneys or Federal courts interpret Airbnb's situation as a broker service that is therefore subject to those limitations.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, and applies to any use of any rental (or sale) services of a broker, agent, or person in the business of renting (or selling) real estate in support of a discriminatory rental, after December 31, 1969. Its only legal (since 1970) under the federal fair housing act to discriminate, even as a homeowner renting their own home, if the rental is arranged without the use of some commercial rental-arrangement service. (And even them it may be illegal under state fair housing laws.) > The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker. That's certainly the argument a discriminating owner using AirBnB (or possible AirBnB themselves) would try to make, but AirBnB's financial and substantive involvement in the transaction is very different than that of a hands-off listing service like a newspaper classified section, so I don't think that argument would fly. If AirBnB actually acted like a newspaper classified service, that argument might be valid, but that's not what AirBnB does (if we were talking, instead, about Craigslist, that would be a good argument.)
    - jasode 10y ago
      >No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, [...] To be clear, my response was not disagreeing with this part.
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
> except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it Aren't a large portion of listings from hosts who aren't renting out part of their own residence? For all of them, the law would apply.
DanBC 10y ago
> rent a large number of flats on it Where "large" means "more than one". And not always that. If they own two, live in one but lease the other they're not allowed to discriminate on protected characteristics.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  I believe if the two units are attached to either other (such as in a duplex or triple-decker), then they are allowed to discriminate on any basis they choose.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below. > Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:... (Note that lots of AirBnB rentals of single-family homes are not by the owner, and thus not within this exception even before considering the limitations on the exception.) > (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. [...]) And you shouldn't have, because the part that you snipped is all limitations on the part of the you quoted, including the most important one: "Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; [...]" The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception.

jasode 10y ago
>The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception. I don't think it would be. The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition to help the law pin down properties that are "commercial". In other words, if you're paying the high price of contracting a broker, you're 99.99% likely not to be renting out a personal bedroom. The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker. As far as I can tell, very few people including states' general attorneys or Federal courts interpret Airbnb's situation as a broker service that is therefore subject to those limitations.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, and applies to any use of any rental (or sale) services of a broker, agent, or person in the business of renting (or selling) real estate in support of a discriminatory rental, after December 31, 1969. Its only legal (since 1970) under the federal fair housing act to discriminate, even as a homeowner renting their own home, if the rental is arranged without the use of some commercial rental-arrangement service. (And even them it may be illegal under state fair housing laws.) > The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker. That's certainly the argument a discriminating owner using AirBnB (or possible AirBnB themselves) would try to make, but AirBnB's financial and substantive involvement in the transaction is very different than that of a hands-off listing service like a newspaper classified section, so I don't think that argument would fly. If AirBnB actually acted like a newspaper classified service, that argument might be valid, but that's not what AirBnB does (if we were talking, instead, about Craigslist, that would be a good argument.)
  - jasode 10y ago
    >No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, [...] To be clear, my response was not disagreeing with this part.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

> except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it Aren't a large portion of listings from hosts who aren't renting out part of their own residence? For all of them, the law would apply.

DanBC 10y ago

> rent a large number of flats on it Where "large" means "more than one". And not always that. If they own two, live in one but lease the other they're not allowed to discriminate on protected characteristics.

sokoloff 10y ago
I believe if the two units are attached to either other (such as in a duplex or triple-decker), then they are allowed to discriminate on any basis they choose.