I do see and understand your points, @Sean433. The concerns are, of course, valid as is the burning need to end these tragedies.
However, Airbnb's own Terms of Service prohibit this policy announcement:
Section 14 "Prohibited Activites: discriminate against or harass anyone on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, physical or mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age or sexual orientation, or otherwise engage in any violent, harmful, abusive or disruptive behavior";
The laws of Ontario prohibit the same thing.
I'm also going to point out that the ToCs state, "Hosts alone are responsible for identifying, understanding, and complying with all laws, rules and regulations that apply to their Listings and Host Services ". I suspect this means that it'll be the hosts who try to limit guests under the age of 25 who will be bearing the brunt of the legal costs.
It's one thing for the platform to allow hosts to SAY they require a minimum age for booking, and it's another thing entirely for it to be enforceable. The OHRC is very specific in that it disallows age-based discrimination in very specific instances - accommodation being one of those instances.The courts will decide how to parse this. I guess a similar instance would be that hosts are able to SAY that they don't allow animals, but if a guest with a service animal wishes to book, then it's incumbent upon the host to allow it, as to do anything other than that would be discrimination under the law. There are plenty of long-term landlords who write leases that contain illegal clauses...which is why those agreements say "if anything in this lease is found to be in contravention to the law, that clause will be voided, not the entire agreement". It's up to the tenants to seek enforcement of their rights where contravened.
Who will challenge the policy? Every human rights lawyer in Ontario looking to make a name for his/her/them selves.
Car insurance doesn't disallow men under a certain age to obtain insurance, it just makes it bloody expensive - which is a reflection of the risk the insurer takes to underwrite the policy. Drinking ages across the world are set by the laws of the particular jurisdiction, not by a corporation looking to enhance or protect its reputation. I can't speak to BDC's policies as I'm not a member, but I do see that their terms are criss-crossed with "where applicable by law". I would suspect that any age restrictions they allow hosts to set would, if challenged, by struck down in jurisdictions which do not allow age-based discrimination.
Anti-discrimination laws are in place for excellent reasons, and implementing a policy that allows us to discriminate based on age, in order to eliminate behaviour that is already illegal is a**-backward anyway.
What I'm ultimately saying, Sean, is that I believe this policy is simply a PR announcement. It has no basis in law, it contravenes the company's own policies and it will be just as unenforceable as the "party house ban". Since "the measure relies on user-provided information and "user verification systems."", per the article on CBC, it will do nothing to end these tragedies. It will only further muddy the waters for hosts, guests, and the unfortunate customer service reps who are going to have to try to deal with inquiries, complaints and requests for cancellations that it will inevitably raise. There is no down-side risk to Airbnb with this policy, in spite of its spurious nature. That alone makes it suspect in my mind.
