Plaintiff argued Airbnb's facilitation of rentals constitutes 'trading in real estate'
The British Columbia Supreme Court has allowed a class action to proceed against Airbnb, ruling it is not "plain and obvious" that Airbnb's facilitation of short-term rentals falls outside the Real Estate Services Act (RESA).
The plaintiff alleged that Airbnb’s “Accommodation Rental Services” required licensing as a real estate broker because the platform facilitates leases or rental agreements. Airbnb argued its platform only provides short-term accommodation licenses, which do not constitute real estate transactions.
The proposed representative plaintiff, Margot Ware, filed the action on behalf of individuals who booked short-term accommodations for leisure travel on Airbnb’s platform. The claim asserted that Airbnb provides unlicensed real estate services, travel agency services, and money transfer services, violating multiple provincial and federal regulations, including RESA. Specifically, the plaintiff contended Airbnb’s facilitation of rentals constitutes “trading in real estate” under RESA.
The defendants, which include Airbnb Inc. and its related entities, denied the allegations. They argued that short-term accommodation bookings arranged on Airbnb’s platform do not create leasehold interests but merely grant licenses to occupy, exempting them from real estate laws.
The court refused Airbnb’s motion to strike the claim, emphasizing that the legal interpretation of Airbnb’s services under RESA remains an open question. It found that the claim’s statutory illegality argument—based on Airbnb allegedly operating without required licenses—was sufficiently plausible to warrant further examination.
The Supreme Court ruled that determining whether Airbnb’s facilitation of accommodations amounts to real estate services requires a full evidentiary record, as the legal status of short-term licenses in this context is unclear. Airbnb’s reliance on case law supporting short-term licenses did not conclusively preclude the plaintiff’s arguments at this preliminary stage.
The court also allowed the plaintiff’s claims under BC’s consumer protection laws to proceed, alleging deceptive or unconscionable practices. However, similar claims under non-BC provincial laws were dismissed for insufficient detail, though the plaintiff may amend her pleadings to address this deficiency.
Ultimately, the court certified the class action, allowing it to proceed on specific common issues, including whether Airbnb’s services violate real estate and consumer protection laws and whether class members are entitled to damages or restitution. The proposed class includes individuals who paid Airbnb’s service fees for accommodations located in BC.
