
Airbnb Isn’t Uber, Says European Court of Justice - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-20/airbnb-isn-t-uber-says-european-court-of-justice
======
gwd
> But here’s where the ECJ’s logic is harder to reject. Uber determines the
> price of the ride; Airbnb doesn’t set the rent. Uber sends an order to a
> specific driver; Airbnb merely provides a prospective guest with a list of
> properties. Uber, according to Thursday’s ruling, exercises “decisive
> influence” over the transaction. That’s not the case with Airbnb.

> That’s quite a powerful argument. Airbnb’s hands-off role — renters deal
> directly with hosts throughout the process — makes it less than a real
> estate agent. It actually has a good reason to define itself as an
> information provider rather than a deal facilitator.

> One can imagine what the Uber app would look like if the company operated
> like Airbnb. A rider would enter her location and destination and get a list
> of drivers with their fare bids and distances from the starting point. Then
> the rider would make her choice based on the combination of price and
> arrival speed. That would make Uber an information provider rather than a
> taxi service.

I mean, yeah. I agree 100% with this.

~~~
steve19
> renters deal directly with hosts throughout the process

Hardly. You pay Airbnb, insurance is in theory done through Airbnb, disputes
are done through Airbnb. It's quite possible to have almost zero interaction
with a host (host just messages a code that unlocks building and apartment).
With Uber you are dealing with the driver as much as you are with a Taxi.

~~~
Ravengenocide
Picking out that line in particular, sure you might be right, but there's more
to it, from the first quote from the parent.

> Uber determines the price of the ride; Airbnb doesn’t set the rent. Uber
> sends an order to a specific driver; Airbnb merely provides a prospective
> guest with a list of properties. Uber, according to Thursday’s ruling,
> exercises “decisive influence” over the transaction. That’s not the case
> with Airbnb.

------
dtech
The key point of the ruling is that according to the ECJ Uber drivers do not
operate independently while AirBnB properties do.

Uber assigns the user to a driver and sets the ride price, AirBnB lists all
properties and properties set the price.

------
jariel
Though 'price setting' is a differentiating aspect of these two companies -
it's not hugely material in the determination that 'one is tech one is not'.

Nobody in the world would have been thinking in these terms. There's no chance
Uber/AirBnB lawyers were sitting around thinking 'well, if we cross that
threshold, we might be considered a taxi service'.

If the laws are remotely clear, or subject to even soft interpretation, it'd
be possible to at least predict outcomes - but in this case, as with many
others - they are totally making it up as they go along.

This is a bad ruling, and it probably should not be 'determined' by the EU
courts at all - rather, the EU should 'make up their minds' and clarify as
objectively as they can.

AirBnB is absolutely a hotel company and Uber is absolutely a Taxi company -
they just operate a little different than the classical ones and so they
probably need some kind of thoughtful regulation.

------
mnm1
Does this mean they can shirk any and all liability for any claims like their
competitor vrbo? If so, that is a terrible decision, leaving millions of
people with little to no recourse when things go bad. Governments need to
start addressing issues of liability and access to these giant monopolistic
services. The article is disingenuous in claiming that the guest and host can
find each other in other ways. That's highly unlikely. I can also randomly run
into an uber driver and have him drive me somewhere but that just isn't going
to happen realistically. Why should these companies hold such a monopolistic
position, yet be free from most liabilities? That's not in the interest of the
public anywhere.

------
touchpadder
What's so surprising about that? Comparing these two doesn't make sense.

------
mytailorisrich
Specifically, the EU court of justice ruled that AirBnb was not an estate
agent, which honestly was expected.

------
bilekas
Yep.. The Sky is blue too..

I'm not sure what was to be expected here. I do really like how they point out
the fact that it makes it plain as day too that the property owners are not
employees in any way of AirBnB however its quite hard for Uber to claim the
same about their drivers.

I am looking forward to the IPO of AirBnB.

------
oliverx0
I was skeptical when I read the title, given Europe's constant overregulation
of US tech companies, but the argument actually makes a lot of sense.

~~~
iagooar
From a European point of view, US tech companies are not even close to being
regulated.

~~~
oliverx0
I am European myself, but I tend to have more libertarian tendencies when it
comes to this.

Funny how right after posting this, I just read the news that France fined
Google (again) [1] for arbitrarily banning a company from Google Ads and
promoting its own services (unrelated to the other company). This is the kind
of thing that doesn't fly in the US: If I own a platform, I get to decide who
can use it or not, and it is not the governments place to fine for me if I
decide to promote my products in my platform (as long as there is no
discrimination taking place).

I think this kind of bureaucracy and "overregulation" (inference in private
business affairs) is part of what makes it impossible for European tech
companies to be among the top in the world.

[1]
[https://www.elmundo.es/economia/empresas/2019/12/20/5dfca947...](https://www.elmundo.es/economia/empresas/2019/12/20/5dfca947fc6c83dc6d8b45b1.html)

~~~
moksly
It’s not libertarian to value corporate rights above those of the individual
citizen.

Hell, when companies become more powerful than actual governments, the least
libertarian thing you could possible do, is to give their kingdoms free reign.

~~~
atq2119
Depends on what you mean by "libertarian".

There's a vocal group of "libertarians", the ones that veer towards anarcho-
capitalism, whose stance is basically that state power is bad but economic
power is just fine. Those folks may not explicitly say that they _want_
corporate rights to be above those of individual citizens, but the _practical
consequence_ of their worldview is that they will be (to an even greater
extent than they already are today), because corporations have much greater
economic power than individuals.

"Libertarian" used to be a concept that was purely about individual freedom,
but it has been twisted to a large extent into something that is quite opposed
to individual freedom in practice.

~~~
oliverx0
Fair enough, let me clarify: When an individual engages freely in a business
transaction or relationship with a corporation, I think that government
intervention should be minimal. A clear example of this is employment-at-will.
This doctrine only exists in the US. Everywhere else, governments step in and
determine that you can not fire someone without cause. Competition is what
makes this point of view OK, without it, it does become a monopoly and
problematic.

~~~
mnm1
I would say an individual never engages freely in a working relationship
unless that individual is already so rich that he doesn't need to work.
Otherwise it's by necessity that people have to get jobs as we do not have the
ability to reject the social contract and live off the land or anything like
that (legally or practically). At will employment is a misnomer. There's
nothing at will about most employment regardless of what we call it.

------
Cougher
I thought Airbnb was a voyeur porn facilitator?

