"It creates no obligation on plaintiffs' part to monitor, edit, withdraw or block the content supplied by hosts" This is a correct interpretation of the Safe H

"It creates no obligation on plaintiffs' part to monitor, edit, withdraw or block the content supplied by hosts" This is a correct interpretation of the Safe Harbor laws. If Airbnb was a message board and people just happened to arrange short-term rentals through it they would be fine. An ISP fits this as well because they are not actively invested to what is happening on their networks, only maintaining the networks. Likewise what their users contribute is irrelevant to the rejection. There is just no way you can argue away the fact that Airbnb is not a direct contributor to the market. They collect fees directly related to the service provided of providing short-term rentals classed as 'Booking Service' in the letter of the law of the pdf. The logic is very simple: if you are thing classified as a booking service then you need to follow these regulations. An ISP cannot be classed as a booking service under the letter of the law. obligatory IANAL.