Airdnc? Trump Group Accuses Airbnb Host Of Eviction On Political Grounds
There is an interesting controversy growing over an alleged eviction by an Airbnb host in Philadelphia of Trump supporters. The conservative site Breitbart is reporting that “ballot chasers” for Trump were allegedly given an hour to clear out after the host learned that they were in Pennsylvania to get out the vote for Trump. If true, the incident raises a serious matter for Airbnb over hosts imposing political conditions for the use of their property.
Once again, we have not heard the other side to this controversy. However, if these allegations are established, it raises a variation of an issue that has been discussed for years on this blog: the role of private companies or businesses in censoring speech or blacklisting individuals.
First for the obvious threshold point. Private property owners have a right to exclude people from their property on any number of issues. This homeowner is likely to be lionized by many who agree with the decision. If an owner wants to run their home like an Airdnc, they have every right to do so. The question is whether they can do so as an Airbnb.
It is worth noting that many of the same individuals supporting this owner likely opposed the right of business owners in cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop and 303 Creative. In those cases, the owners refused to make products for celebrations that conflicted with their religious views.
I have previously written why businesses should have the right of such denial as a matter of free speech, including in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
In this case, an owner is accused of refusing service or rentals based on political grounds.
The question is not whether this owner has the right of exclusion in a home, but whether Airbnb is now allowing such threshold political tests to be applied by owners. It would create an uncertainty for guests who would not know if they may be tossed to the street if they reveal their political viewpoints or affiliations.
The incident could be a type of micro-cancel problem. We have seen universities and colleges cancel conservative and libertarian speakers under pressure from faculty and students who cannot tolerate opposing views from being spoken on campuses.
Citizens Alliance’s PA CHASE says that it is still pursuing a requested $5,000 refund.
Airbnb notes in its contractual language that
“Guest identity verification, reservation screening and the 24-hour safety line are tools or features used by Airbnb to help verify guest identities, screen reservations for potential party and property damage risk, and provide access to Airbnb’s 24-hour safety line.”
There is no indication that the group was planning large gatherings at the location. However, it could be cited by the owner.
If the group is mistaken or misrepresenting the facts, Airbnb should make that clear. It should also make clear what its policy is on possible political conditions for Airbnb listings. One possibility is that the owner will argue that he or she did not want the property used for a high-traffic political effort operating out of the home. A homeowner could reasonably demand that the property not be used for large parties or high-traffic enterprises.
Conversely, Citizens Alliance is suggesting that they were simply planning to stay at the home. Moreover, other guests have likely held parties on rented premises without such alleged peremptory action. Notably, Airbnb promises homeowners up to $3 million in insurance for any damage to property.
Airbnb has a strong anti-discrimination policy on race but is silent on political viewpoints.
If the host barred Trump supporters due simply to their political affiliations or the purpose of their visit, it would seem inimical to the business model of the company. However, there are difficult hypotheticals on the extremes.
For example, what if an owner came to hand over the keys only to find guests wearing KKK or neo-Nazi outfits? What if a pro-life owner learned that the home would be used at the base camp for a pro-abortion campaign? Do they have the right to decline service like a cake shop or web designer?
The difference may be based on the use of the property. Airbnb operates like an aggregated hotel chain using private owners to supply the rooms. Just as Hyatt cannot impose political litmus tests, it is unworkable to allow such a test by individual owners and still maintain a viable national chain.
If this owner was in compliance with Airbnb contractual conditions, the site should make that clear to renters. At a minimum, Airbnb would have to require owners to state upfront any threshold political conditions. That would be a nightmare for the company since the site would turn into a patchwork of threshold exclusions. That would destroy the premise of the site which treats the room stock as uniformly available and only differentiated on physical layout and pricing.
Notably, in cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop, the owner insisted that he would sell pre-made cakes to anyone who wanted to buy them. He only objected to preparing special cakes for ceremonies that contradicted his religious views.
In the same way, Airbnb could make clear that, so long as the property itself will not be used for political or advocacy activities, owners are expected to adopt a non-discriminatory policy on political viewpoints. The cost of renting out your home to strangers is that you will likely disagree with the values of many of the renters.
Airbnb is reportedly still looking at the refund request.