@Kai32 @Molly263 @John1574 @Lucinda61 @Robyn179 @Morgan78
@Kim2164 @Anonymous @Arnold44 @Jeffrey-J0 @Salli3 @Lisa2078 @Lisa337 @Brookh0
@Sarkis2 @Chris1982 @Chan32 @Kenneth12 @Carolina443 @Steve143 @Jeffrey119 @Susan17
A few points from a long time french consumer activist, who already fought a few battles in french Courts agains Big Corp.
Sorry if I sound a bit patronizing, but anyone who would care to read any book on consumer law would easily find the same information.
As far as I can reckon all OECD countries ( including USA , UK , Germany , France etc ) share common principles for making business, and hence for protecting consumer rights.
1. When a corporation enters in a contract with a consumer by way of its "Terms of services" ( here the word consumer refers BOTH to guests and hosts ) there are some basic principles which every contract must respect in order to be deemed legally valid.
2. Of particular note, amongst these principles , are
the principle of express consent ( a business man can consent with his / her silence , but not a consumer - this is a major difference between the two realms of business law and consumer law)
the principle of readability ( contract should at the minimum be easy to READ without the help of glasses and be easy to follow from "a to z" .... but does NOT have to be easy to understand)
the acknowledgment of responsability by the corporation, acting as a professionnal with cautiousness and hindsight, and taking care of the security of the consumer (host and guest alike) .
the absence of hidden costs
the limitations on use of personal data
etc etc
3. A detailed examination of AirBnb TOS has been undertaken by France's largest consumer association in the summer of 2018 ( at the time EU authorities threatened AirBnb with lawsuits) together with TOSes from a number of start ups and on line hosting ( Homeaway, Drivy, Zilok, Stootie....) . Guess who came out the worst of all, on a count of abusive clauses : AirBnb of course !!
4. The french association counted 45 instances of abusive clauses in AirBnb TOS. This does not mean that a judge would decide that all 45 clauses are abusive. It means that there is high suspicion that 45 articles in the TOS could be deemed abusive by Court, if and when Court opinion will be sollicited by consumer groups. Amongst which
- AirBNB TOS are often illegible since they include a high number of hyperlinks , sometimes written in english, and full of fuzzy and imprecise expressions which" a consumer should never be able to find in a contract. Expressions such as " from time to time " " other sites" " at its own discretion"
- In legal terms, AirBNB exonerates itself of any responsability in case of problem, such as a major problem with the listing or major break of house rules. In its contract AirBnb is never responsible for direct damage caused to hosts and guests. However this contractual exoneration is being waived "from time to time" (!!!!!!) , either on a voluntary basis ( AirBnb often acknowledges "de facto" its responsability by reimbursing part of damages incurred by either host or guest even in case the other party is unwilling to pay ) or on a non voluntary basis, when push comes to shove, and AirBnb is forced to reimburse host or guest following non-amicable pressures.
As an exemple of the above the french consumer association successfully intervened in obtaining full reimbursement of a french guest and member of the consumer association in the following case. The guest had planned a short week holidays in a flat in Madrid. Upon check-in the guest realizes that she can hardly open and lock the front door due to some problem on the main lock. She calls AirBnb , cancels the rental and ask for reimbursement. Airbnb only agrees to reimburse marginal amount of total rental cost under the pretext that they are not responsible for host's lack of maintenance. Realizing that AirBnb customer service is but a piece of crap ( which it really is !!!) , instead of shouting herself hoarse and loosing precious holiday time on the phone, she calmly awaits her return to France. Back in her hometown she calls the Consumer Association which, in turn, calls AirBnb and a few days later, she received full reimbursement without having to call AirBnb a second time.
Obviously when cornered by legally competent people, or threatened with legal action, AirBnb becomes suddenly more amenable to acknowledging its responsability. But not to the point of showcasing it in its TOS ( thereby continuing its f£$%ing game of deterring uninformed consumers from claiming AirBnB's responsability when things turn sour) .
The lack of acknowledgment of AIrBNb 's responsability in its own contract is a major cause of concern for France's largest consumer association.
Because it leaves the host and guest at the mercy of AirBnb's own arbitrage ( aka "private justice" ) in case of problems.
In conclusion, as @Beverly21 put it in one of her post on the thread related to the Orinda Killing , AirBnb has more responsability than they are exhibiting. And the top managers know it.
The crux of the legal matter is therefore to force AirBnb to officially recognize what it currently recognizes in a strictly limited and very unofficial way.
Once Courts will have forced AirBnb to recognize its responsability in the small and big sh%t which originate in its perverse business model, the company shares will become much less attractive to stockholders.
This legal recognition of responsability does not need to be asserted in each market where AirBnb operates. The leading AirBnb markets ( France , USA , what else ? ) can take the lead in this respect.
A global strategy has to be elaborated between the various consumer groups in these main markets. Hosts should join forces with their respective Consumer Unions in their home countries in order to pressure them to coordinate action at national and international level to push for recognition of AirBnb legal responsability.
