Need Review Policy Clarification — False Factual Statement Upheld After Dispute

[Ryan4313]

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping to get some guidance or a second look at a recent review dispute, because the decision I received appears to conflict with Airbnb’s written Review Policy. I’m not trying to remove a guest’s opinions or their star rating — only the objectively false statements, which the policy states are not permitted.

Here’s the situation:

A guest left a review containing the factual claim that “Host never responded to my last message.”
However, the message timestamps in the Airbnb thread show that I responded promptly, and the guest was inside within two minutes. I also arranged an in-person check, which confirmed they were inside and satisfied. The guest never sent any follow-up message indicating a continued issue, and there was nothing left to respond to. This part of the review is not subjective — it is factually incorrect.

The review also stated that the key “almost broke,” but the key was undamaged and the lock was used without issue by cleaners before and after, by my neighbor during the check, and by myself afterward. This concern was not communicated during the stay and does not reflect what actually occurred.

Additionally, the guest described a hot tub outage as a major issue and wrote that a partial refund should have been offered. I had disclosed the recent storm-related damage and repair timeline prior to arrival, and the guest never communicated that they planned to use it or that the outage affected their stay. This concern appeared only afterward in the review, which is misleading because it suggests the host ignored an issue that was never raised.

I take hosting seriously and have always prioritized communication, which is reflected in my Superhost/Co-host status and consistent 5-star communication ratings across more than 130 reviews.

I have 136 reviews at 4.9 stars, including this guest’s 3 stars. I fully accept their rating and their subjective opinions about lighting, size, value, etc. My question is only about the false factual statements that contradict the documented message history.

During the dispute process, the denial message referenced the review as reflecting the guest’s “experience related to the cancellation,” even though there was no cancellation involved in this reservation. This makes me concerned that the wrong internal template or criteria may have been applied.

Most of the denial messaging also focused on the home not being “perfect,” which was never my argument. I am not disputing subjective feedback — only the objectively false factual claims that remain on the published review.

I'm happy to share screenshots of messaging about the key and hot tub, the undamaged key, texts from in-person check...  But I am unsure of the rules here and do not want to share the guests name or private information.

I’m not looking for a public argument — just clarification on the correct policy application for factual inaccuracies in reviews, and whether these objectively false statements can be reviewed again for removal by the appropriate team.

Thank you for your time,
Ryan

[Emiel1]

@Ryan4313 

You are the co-host of the listing.

All reviews are on the host (Ian) profile.

I read the review and there are some differences:

"the key almost broke,” is not in the review

the "last message" issue seems to be related to the problem with the lock

The hot tub-issue is how the guest experienced it.

I suggest to leave a public comment on the review and move on.

I fear Airbnb will not remove the review.

With a 3 -stars rating IMO there is not that much damage caused to the hosts's reputation.

[Ryan4313]

Hi @Emiel1,

Thanks for the perspective. I’m the co-host on this listing and have not figured how to merge reviews under one profile.

You're right, the "almost broken key" is from an after the fact message, the fear of not being able to get in again, is in the review, but never was communicated to me. Guests arrived, messaged "issue with lock" - time stamp 2 minutes later "we're in" - (granddaughter used the key) - in person check with guests "inside and happy" - further communication from me checking on them - no further communication from them or any indication of ongoing issue - then review.  

I’m not worried about the guest’s subjective opinions in the review or even the 3-star rating — after 130+ reviews with strong communication and happy guests, I’m comfortable with how guests normally experience the home.

What is bothersome is the factual claim that “Host never responded to my last message,” which is directly contradicted in messages. Nothing further was communicated, so there was nothing left to reply to.

Same with the hot tub — if they had mentioned it mattered to them even slightly, I would have offered a partial refund immediately, and happily. Many guests don’t even use it, and they never indicated it affected their 2 night stay until after checkout. The message about the hot tub was met with, "Sound great! and we'd like an early check-in.." - which was accommodated. 

What seems off from airbnb is that the denial response referenced a “cancellation,” which didn’t happen, so it feels like a templated or AI-generated review rather than an actual policy evaluation. Airbnb says false factual statements aren’t allowed, so I’m looking to understand how that’s applied in practice.

If nothing can be changed, you're right,  I’ll post a public response and move on.
Thanks again for your time and thoughts.

Ryan

[Wendy-May0]

That is the classic challenge, Ryan. You have 130-plus reviews and clear timestamps, so you know exactly where the policy conflict exists. The frustration is not the policy itself, but getting the frontline agent to investigate the evidence instead of defaulting to a subjective experience template.

The good news is you have clear, irrefutable evidence for your strongest point: the claim that the "Host never responded to my last message." That is a provable factual error, and you should focus your entire strategy there. The key and hot tub issues are too easily dismissed as subjective perception.

Here is some advice on the objective strategy to pursue the removal, focusing strictly on policy and evidence:

 escalation strategy..

1. Isolate the Strongest Point: Do not argue the subjective rating or opinions. Frame the argument strictly around the timeline. State that you are seeking removal of a sentence that is a verifiable factual inaccuracy because it is directly contradicted by the platform's own timestamped evidence.

2. Challenge the Process: The key to escalation is proving the previous review was flawed.

   • Actionable Step: Avoid the web form. You need to call or use the dedicated support chat to speak to a person directly.

   • Initial Leverage: Start by pointing out the error in the denial message (the reference to "cancellation"). This is clear proof the agent did not read your submission and used the wrong template. Use this to demand a new review by a senior agent or specialist team.

3. The Policy Argument: Once you have a senior agent, insist that you require a formal Review Policy check . Reiterate that the sentence attacking your communication rating is proven false by the message history.

You have the documentation needed to win on that communication claim. Feel free to message me any questions about structuring the claim or what to say to the agent to get past the initial denial.