Airbnb filed a lawsuit against the City of Anaheim seeking to prevent the enforcement of Ordinance 6374, which banned short-term rentals. The ordinance would hold Airbnb criminally and civilly liable for any third-party listings that did not comply with city regulations, even though Airbnb has no way to confirm compliance. Airbnb argues this violates the Communications Decency Act by treating them as a publisher, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments by restricting speech and imposing penalties without due process. If enforced, the ordinance would force Airbnb to remove all Anaheim listings, irreparably harming its business.

1. Summary
Airbnb v. City of Anaheim
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Airbnb has filed its second lawsuit, this time against the City of Anaheim, to fight attempts to
outlaw short term rentals (STRs). Ordinance 6374 (“Ordinance”) was passed by the Anaheim
City Council on July 12, 2016 and is slated to take effect on August 11, 2016. Airbnb filed suit
seeking a permanent injunction and declaratory relief on July 28, 2016.
The legal arguments being employed in this suit mirror those of Airbnb’s recently filed lawsuit
against the city of San Francisco. They are:
● Communications Decency Act (“CDA”): holding an online platform both civilly and
criminally liable for third party content that fails to conform with any city law or failing
to remove said illegal listings as if the online platform is the publisher or speaker is a
direct violation of the CDA.
● First Amendment, two violations: Ordinance is an impermissible content­based
restriction where the content counts as speech; imposing civil and criminal penalties
without first requiring that there be a showing by the City that Airbnb knew the rental
listing was illegal.
● Fourteenth Amendment, two violations: Ordinance imposes civil and criminal penalties
for publication of third­party content; Due Process Clause is violated when the City can
impose civil and criminal penalties without first showing that Airbnb knew the listing
was not in compliance with one or more City laws.
Since May 2014 the City of Anaheim has had regulations in place that require those wishing to
rent out their properties on a short term basis to first obtain a permit from the city as well as meet
other requirements, such as providing parking for renters. Some 350 properties owners obtained
permits. Fines were imposed when property owners failed to obtain permits or violated other
requirements for STRs. The City’s Director of Planning admitted at a City Council meeting that
these regulations have been effective. Indeed,the City employs 31 full­time code enforcement
officers who are divided between monitoring online platforms, monitoring neighborhoods, and
responding to resident complaints. However, community members pushed the City Council to
go further than just regulating STRs, which led to a moratorium and ultimately passage of the
new Ordinance banning STRs altogether.

2. The Ordinance holds online platforms criminally liable for failing to verify any one of a long list
of requirements STR hosts must comply with such as providing off­street parking or having a
property address visible from the street that is in contrasting colors. Criminal penalties to online
platforms can include imprisonment up to 6 months. Further, the Ordinance allows for civil
citations that carry monetary penalties. Such citations can be issued without warning or notice to
cure. Yet despite the harsh penalties, the City provides no mechanism for Airbnb to confirm
hosts are in full compliance with City laws before allowing a listing to be posted, placing an
undue burden on the company.
Given the difficulty in vetting listings and the severity of penalties if a listing is found to be
impermissible, Airbnb sees no other practical way to comply with the Ordinance other than
removing all Anaheim listings from its site. This would cause Airbnb to suffer irreparable harm
by damaging its reputation. The suit seeks to have the court permanently enjoin the City from
enforcing the Ordinance as well as a declaration by the court of the Ordinance’s
unconstitutionality.