DOCSLIB.ORG

Airbnb V. San Francisco

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 36

12
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney JAMES M. EMERY, State Bar #153630 ROBB W. KAPLA, State Bar #238896 SARA J. EISENBERG, State Bar #269303 Deputy City Attorneys City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4602
345
Telephone: Facsimile: E-Mail:
(415) 554-4628
6
(415) 554-4757

jim.emery @sfgov.org
7

8
Attorneys for Defendant

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No. 3:16-cv-03615-JD
  • AIRBNB, INC.,

Plaintiff,

SAN FRANCISCO’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

HOMEAWAY.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Intervenor, vs.

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Hearing Date: Time:
October 6, 2016 10:00a.m.

  • Place:
  • Courtroom 11

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

  • FRANCISCO,
  • Trial Date:
  • Not set

Defendant.

CCSF’s MPA ISO Opp to PI Mtn CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03615-JD

n:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136489.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 36

TABLE OF CONTENTS

12
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5
345

  • I.
  • The Communications Decency Act Does Not Preempt San Francisco’s

Ordinance.................................................................................................................5
6

  • A.
  • Binding Ninth Circuit Precedent Establishes That the CDA Does Not

Preempt San Francisco’s Ordinance, Since the Ordinance Does Not Seek to Impose Liability on Websites as a “Publisher or Speaker” Of ThirdParty Content. ..............................................................................................6
789

  • B.
  • Airbnb’s and Homeaway’s Contrary Arguments Fail. ..............................11

1.

2. 3.
The Ordinance Does Not Impose Liability On Hosting Platforms For Third-Party Transactions.........................................................12
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The Ordinance Does Not Impose Liability On Hosting Platforms For Revenue From Publishing Activities.......................................14

The Ordinance Does Not Require Hosting Platforms To Monitor The Content Of Listings.................................................................14

  • II.
  • San Francisco’s Ordinance Comports with the First Amendment.........................16

  • A.
  • The First Amendment Does Not Apply, Because San Francisco’s

Ordinance is Directed to Conduct, not Speech. .........................................16

  • B.
  • Any Speech That The Ordinance May Burden Is Only Illegal and

Misleading Speech, Which Does Not Receive First Amendment Protection...................................................................................................18

C.

D.
In Any Event, San Francisco’s Ordinance Is Narrowly Tailored to Serve a Substantial Government Interest.............................................................20

The Ordinance Does Not Impose Strict Liability On Hosting Platforms For Speech. ................................................................................................24

III.

IV.
Airbnb and Homeaway Have Failed To Demonstrate Irreparable Harm, and the Balance of Hardships Favors Enforcement of the Ordinance................................26

The Court Should Require A Bond As A Condition For Any Injunction. ............28
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................29

CCSF’s MPA ISO Opp to PI Mtn CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03615-JD

i

n:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136254.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 36

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

12

Federal Cases

800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. GoTo.com, Inc.

3
437 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.N.J. 2006)............................................................................................11

4

Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc.

2004 WL 49100036 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2004)...........................................................................14
5

Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc.

6
421 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (N.D. Cal. 2006).................................................................................9, 11
7

Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper

8
939 F. Supp. 2d 805 (M. D. Tenn. 2013)................................................................11, 14, 15, 24

9

Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna

881 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (W.D. Wash. 2012)...........................................................................15, 18
10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Bar v. Went For It, Inc.

515 U.S. 618, 632 (1995)...........................................................................................................20

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.

570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................6, 7, 8, 10, 11

Bartnicki v. Vopper

532 U.S. 514 (2001)...................................................................................................................22

Board of Trustees of the State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox

492 U.S. 469 (1989)...................................................................................................................20

Boelter v. Hearst Comm., Inc.

__ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 3369541 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016).................................................21

California Outdoor Equity Partners v. City of Corona

2015 WL 4163346 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) .............................................................................21

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n

447 U.S. 557 (1980)......................................................................................................19, 20, 21

Citizens for Free Speech, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Alameda

114 F.Supp.3d 952 (N.D. Cal. 2015).........................................................................................21

City of Chicago, Illinois v. Stubhub!, Inc.

624 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................10, 11

Contest Promotions, LLC v. City & Cty. of San Francisco

2015 WL 4571564 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2015) ...........................................................................21

Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004).................................................................................14

CCSF’s MPA ISO Opp to PI Mtn CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03615-JD

ii

n:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136489.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 4 of 36

CTIA-The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley

12
2015 WL 5569072 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) ............................................................................21

Dana's R.R. Supply v. Attorney Gen., Florida

807 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................20
3

DISH Network Corp. v. FCC

4
653 F.3d 771 (9th Cir.2011) ........................................................................................................5

5

Doe v. Factfinder Network, Inc.

  • 6
  • 540 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D.N.H. 2008)...........................................................................................15

7

Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc.

824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................6, 8, 11, 15
8

Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC

9
521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................6, 7, 8, 10, 11

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Fields v. Twitter, Inc.

2016 WL 4205687 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016) ..........................................................................15

Flytenow, Inc. v. FAA

808 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................19

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General

825 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 2016)......................................................................................................18

Gametech Int’l, Inc. v. Trend Gaming Sys., L.L.C

2005 WL 1473982 (D. Ariz. June 21, 2005) ..............................................................................29

Geft Outdoor LLC v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis and County of Marion, Ind.

__ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 2941329 at *10 (S.D. Ind. May 20, 2016).......................................21

Gibson v. Craigslist, Inc.

2009 WL 1704355 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2009) ...........................................................................14

Goddard v. Google, Inc.

2008 WL 5245490 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008)...........................................................................14

Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass’n, Inc. v. United States

527 U.S. 173 (1999)...................................................................................................................20

Hinton v. Amazon.com.dedc, LLC

72 F.Supp. 3d 685 (S.D. Miss. 2014) .......................................................................................14

Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.

455 U.S. 489 (1982)...................................................................................................................26

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

561 U.S. 1 (2010).......................................................................................................................26

CCSF’s MPA ISO Opp to PI Mtn CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03615-JD

iii

n:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136489.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 5 of 36

Hunt v. City of Los Angeles

12
638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................................26

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell

485 U.S. 46 (1988).....................................................................................................................24
3

Inman v. Technicolor USA, Inc.

4
2011 WL 5829024 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2011)...........................................................................13
5

Klein v. City of San Clemente

6
584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.2009) ......................................................................................................5

7

Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

__ F.3d __, 2016 WL 3632375 (9th Cir. July 7, 2016)..................................................................20
8

Metro Lights, L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles,

9
551 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009)...............................................................................................20, 23

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

New York v. Ferber

458 U.S. 747 (1982)...................................................................................................................24

Nunes v. Twitter

__ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 3660526 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2016) ............................................10, 11

Peterson v. Village of Downers Grove

150 F.Supp.3d 910 (N.D. Ill. 2015)..........................................................................................20

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations

413 U.S. 376 (1973)...................................................................................................................19

RCP Publ’ns, Inc. v. City of Chicago

__ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 4593830 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2016)....................................................21

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015)................................................................................................................20

Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Appelsmith

810 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2016) .....................................................................................................19

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc.

732 F. Supp. 2d 628 (E.D. Va. 2010) ................................................................................7, 8, 14

San Francisco Apt. Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco

142 F.Supp.3d 910 (N.D. Cal. 2015).........................................................................................21

Senate Permanent Subcomm. v. Ferrer

__ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 4179289 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2016)......................................................19

Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd.

502 U.S. 105 (1991).............................................................................................................16, 17

CCSF’s MPA ISO Opp to PI Mtn CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03615-JD

iv

n:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136489.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 6 of 36

Smith v. California

12
361 U.S. 147 (1959)...................................................................................................................24

Sorrell v. IMS Health

564 U.S. 552 (2011).................................................................................................16, 17, 19, 21
3

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky

4
586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2009) ......................................................................................................5
5

Thalheimer v. City of San Diego

6
645 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................5

7

Thompson v. Western States Medical Center

535 U.S. 357 (2002) ..................................................................................................................24
8

U.S. v. Ford

9
821 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2016)........................................................................................................25

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union

513 U.S. 454 (1995) ............................................................................................................16, 17

United States v. Williams

553 U.S. 285 (2008)...................................................................................................................19

United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.

513 U.S. 64 (1994).....................................................................................................................24

Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting

709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................22, 23

Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t

444 U.S. 620 (1980)..................................................................................................................22

Vivid Entm’t, LLC v. Fielding

774 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................................5

Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English

42 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................24

State Cases

Gentry v. eBay, Inc.

99 Cal. App. 4th 816 (2002) ......................................................................................................13

Hill v. StubHub, Inc.

727 S.E.2d 550 (N.C. App. 2012)..............................................................................................12

J.S. v. Village Voice

184 Wash. 2d 95 (2005).............................................................................................................11

CCSF’s MPA ISO Opp to PI Mtn CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03615-JD

v

n:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136489.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 7 of 36

Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC v. City of Los Angeles

12
245 Cal.App.4th 610 (2016) .....................................................................................................19

Stoner v. eBay

2000 WL 1705637 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2000)..............................................................12, 15
3

Federal Statutes

4

  • 5
  • 47 United States Code

Section 230(c)(1) ...................................................................................................................6, 11
6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
7
Section 65(c)..............................................................................................................................28

8

San Francisco Codes

9
San Francisco Administrative Code

Section 41A.........................................................................................................................2, 4, 21 Section 41A.5(g)(4)(C) ..........................................................................................................5, 16
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Other References

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com.”); Patricia Spiccia,
The Best Things in Life Are Not Free: Why Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Should Be Earned and Not Freely Given,

48 Val. U. L. Rev. 369 (2013)....................................................................................................6

Ryan Gerdes, Scaling Back S 230 Immunity: Why the Communications Decency Act Should
Take A Page from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s Service Provider Immunity

Playbook, 60 Drake L. Rev. 653, 664 (2012...............................................................................6

CCSF’s MPA ISO Opp to PI Mtn CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03615-JD

vi

n:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136489.docx

Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 8 of 36

INTRODUCTION

12
Airbnb and Homeaway attempt to stretch both the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the First Amendment beyond all reasonable bounds. They assert, essentially, that because their business is online, they are immune from any regulation of their commercial transactions.
The CDA protects online service providers from liability as publishers or speakers of content provided by third parties. Under the CDA, Airbnb and Homeaway cannot be held liable for what individual hosts upload to their websites. San Francisco’s Short Term Residential Rental Ordinance (the Ordinance) does not impose liability on a Hosting Platform based on content provided by third party hosts. To the contrary, San Francisco holds a Hosting Platform responsible only if and when it (1) provides booking services for an illegal short-term rental with an unregistered host; and (2) receives a fee for those booking services. Since San Francisco’s Ordinance does not impose liability for third party content, the CDA does not apply.
3456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
For these same reasons, San Francisco’s Ordinance does not implicate First Amendment interests. Because the Ordinance prohibits a Hosting Platform from providing booking services and receiving a fee for an illegal short-term rental, the Ordinance regulates only conduct (an unlawful commercial transaction), not speech. The Ordinance imposes no burden on any protected speech or expression.
The balance of hardships weighs further against an injunction. It is simple enough for Airbnb and Homeaway to verify whether their San Francisco hosts have registered with the City. They could simply require hosts to provide them an image of their City-issued registration certificate. Uber requires every new driver to provide an image of his or her driver’s licenses before Uber allows the new driver to pick up any passengers. Airbnb’s newly minted non-discrimination policy further demonstrates it has the ability to require host verification, when it wants to. Preserving Airbnb’s $30 billion business valuation, which is based on profits from illegal host transactions, is not a legitimate interest when balanced against San Francisco’s urgent need: (1) to preserve scarce housing stock, (2) to reduce the incentive of landlords to evict existing tenants or hold apartments off the long-term market, and (3) to preserve the quality of life and character of its residential neighborhoods.

Recommended publications
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Southeastern

    Brief Amici Curiae of Southeastern

    No. 16-14 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FLYTENOW, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Administrator, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER, THE BUCKEYE INSTITUTE, THE BEACON CENTER OF TENNESSEE, AND THOMAS P. GROSS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KIMBERLY S. HERMANN JOHN J. PARK,JR. SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL Counsel of Record FOUNDATION STRICKLAND BROCKINGTON 2255 Sewell Mill Rd., LEWIS LLP Suite 320 1170 Peachtree St., Marietta, GA 30062 Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30309 (678) 347-2208 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae July 29, 2016 [Additional Counsel Listed On Signature Pages] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner presents this Court with three questions, the first of which is: 1. In deciding what level of deference is due an agency’s interpretation when it predominantly inter- prets common law terms, five circuit courts of appeals have held no deference is
  • Creating an Environment for Permissionless Innovation

    Creating an Environment for Permissionless Innovation

    TESTIMONY CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION Christopher Koopman Senior Director, Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University Senior Affiliated Scholar, Mercatus Center at George Mason University US Congress Joint Economic Committee Hearing: Breaking through the Regulatory Barrier: What Red Tape Means for the Innovation Economy May 22, 2018 Thank you, Chairman Paulsen, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee, for holding this hearing on this important topic. My name is Christopher Koopman. I am senior director at the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University and a senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. I am grateful for the invitation to discuss opportunities and challenges facing innovators and entrepreneurs in the United States, especially the role regulation is increasingly playing in the innovation economy. This issue parallels much of my work over the past five years, as well as other research projects being pursued at both the Center for Growth and Opportunity and the Mercatus Center. Any opinions I express today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. The current regulatory environment is inimical to innovation. 1. The culture of “permissionless innovation,” which was responsible for much of the economic growth associated with the growth of the internet, is now being stifled by old regulatory regimes. 2. Continuing to apply these regimes is not only discouraging innovation, but pushing innovators to pursue better regulatory climates overseas. 3. Reforming the regulatory regime is necessary to continue to reap the benefits of innovation we experienced over the past 30 years.
  • Sdílená Ekonomika: Fakta a Mýty

    Sdílená Ekonomika: Fakta a Mýty

    EKONOMICKO-SPRÁVNÍ FAKULTA Diplomová práce Sdílená ekonomika: fakta a mýty MGR. VLASTIMIL SLOVÁK Vedoucí práce: Ing. Michal struk, Ph.D. Obor: Veřejná ekonomika a správa Brno 2020 MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Ekonomicko-správní fakulta MUNI Lipová 41a, 602 00 Brno IČ: 00216224 ECON DIČ: CZ00216224 Zadání diplomové práce Akademický rok: 2019/2020 Student: Mgr. Bc. Vlastimil Slovák Obor: Veřejná ekonomika a správa Název práce: Sdílená ekonomika: fakta a mýty Název práce anglicky: Shared economy: facts and myths Cíl práce, postup a použité metody: Problémová oblast: Práce se aktuálním konceptem sdílené ekonomiky, který představuje vý- znamný potenciál ve smyslu efektivnější alokace dostupných zdrojů. Práce se bude věnovat jak teoretickému popisu konceptu, tak i praktickým aplika- cím, včetně právních a společenských souvislostí. Cíl práce: Cílem diplomové práce popis vývoje a aktuálních trendů v oblasti konceptu sdílené ekonomiky, včetně identifikace a zobecnění příčin a okolností, které v praxi vedli jak k úspěšným, tak i neúspěšným realizacím daného koncep- tuje. Postup práce: 1) Autor popíše koncept sdílené ekonomiky, definuje pojem, popíše historii a podstatu sdílené ekonomiky. 2) Autor se zaměří na vztah mezi nástupem sdílené ekonomiky a změnami regulatorního prostředí a dále společenským a právním souvislostem. 3) Na základě relevantních zdrojů vybere autor odvětví sdílené ekonomiky s obvyklým výskytem případů sdílené ekonomiky. Autor následně popíše případy úspěšných ekonomických subjektů s konkrétními aplikacemi, které dokázaly využít tržní potenciál sdílené ekonomiky a taky případy subjektů, které tento potenciál rozvinout nedokázaly včetně analýzy příčin a okolností úspěchu a neúspěchu. 4) Na závěr autor provede zobecnění závěrů z analyzovaných případových studií. Rozsah grafických prací: Podle pokynů vedoucího práce Rozsah práce bez příloh: 60 – 80 stran Literatura: SUNDARARAJAN, A.
  • Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018

    Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018

    Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018 By Marcus P. Zillman, M.S., A.M.H.A. Executive Director – Virtual Private Library [email protected] Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018 is a comprehensive listing of entrepreneurial resources and sites on the Internet. The below list of sources is taken from my Subject Tracer™ Information Blog titled Entrepreneurial Resources and is constantly updated with Subject Tracer™ bots at the following URL: http://www.EntrepreneurialResources.info/ These resources and sources will help you to discover the many pathways available through the Internet to find the latest entrepreneur resources and sites. As this site is constantly updated it would be to your benefit to bookmark and return to the above URL frequently. Figure 1: Entrepreneurial Resources 2018 Subject Tracer™ Information Blog 1 [Updated November 22, 2017] Entrepreneurial Resources On the Internet 2018 http://www.EntrepreneurialResources.info/ [email protected]/ eVoice: 800-858-1462 © 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Marcus P. Zillman, M.S., A.M.H.A. Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018: 100 Search Engines http://www.100SearchEngines.com/ 101 Useful Resources for Online Entrepreneurs http://www.blogtrepreneur.com/2008/03/10/resources-for-online-entrepreneurs/ 101+ Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) Resources for Investigators http://i-sight.com/resources/101-osint-resources-for-investigators/ 123RF Royalty Free Digital Library http://www.123rf.com/ 15Five
  • Insurance in the Headlines

    Insurance in the Headlines

    Insurance in the Headlines “What’s Going On?” Copyright 2016 by the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America “Insurance in the Headlines” Series Emerging 2016 Insurance Issues Presented by… Bill Wilson, CPCU Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA) [email protected] Tim Dodge, CPCU Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of New York Copyright 2007-2016 by IIABA “Insurance in the Headlines” Series “Where You Reside” Presented by… Bill Wilson, CPCU Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA) [email protected] Tim Dodge, CPCU Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of New York Copyright 2007-2016 by IIABA ISO Files Most Important Homeowners Change in 40 Years “Unclear and Inconspicuous…The Potentially Catastrophic ‘Where’s Waldo’® Homeowners ‘Exclusion’ You Didn’t Know Existed But Could Cause You To Lose Your Home!” Insureds unexpectedly confined to nursing homes. Forced relocations. Foreclosures. Temporary rentals. Home purchases for children or parents. Allowing a homebuyer to move in before the closing. Renovations and remodeling. These are all situations where adjusters have denied claims and some courts have upheld these denials. What’s the problem and solution? 1 Background • March 2001 "Rent Your Home, Void Your Insurance Policy?“ • June 2005 Big “I” Technical Affairs Committee • October – December 2009 “Where You Reside” white paper and webinar • November 2014 ISO/IIABA resolution • October 2015 New mandatory and optional HO endorsements effective in most states ISO HO‐3 Coverage A • 1976
  • 1. Table of Contens

    1. Table of Contens

    1. Table of Contens 1. Table of Contens 1 2. Acronyms 5 3. Introduction 6 3.1. Background 6 3.1.1. Private jets 6 3.1.2. Positioning flights flights 6 3.1.3. Economical context 7 3.1.4. Ecological context 8 3.2. Motivation 9 3.3. Objective 10 4. Methodology 11 4.1. Theory 11 4.2. Research and Analysis 12 4.3. New brokerage Platform Proposal 13 4.3.1. Framework 13 4.3.2. Design 14 4.3.3. Delimitation 14 5. Theory 15 5.1. Business Model 15 5.1.1. Defintion 15 5.1.2. Business Model Canvas (BMC) 16 5.2. Multi-sided platforms (MSPs) 16 5.2.1. How Many Sides to Bring on Board 16 5.2.1.1. Basic facts 16 5.2.1.2. Network effects 19 5.2.2. Multisided Platform Design 20 5.2.3. Multisided Platform Pricing Structures 21 5.2.4. Multisided Platform Governance Rules 23 5.3. Transaction Cost 24 5.4. Sharing Economy 26 5.5. Aviation Regulations 29 6. Analysis 30 6.1. Comparison: Private Jets vs. Commercial Airlines 30 6.2. Private Flyers 31 6.3. Comparison: Chartered vs. Positioning Private Flights 33 1 6.4. Pricing 34 6.4.1. Chartered flights 34 6.4.2. Positioning flights 35 6.5. Flight Sharing 36 6.6. Positioning flights 37 6.7. Automation and use of modern communication technologies 38 6.8. Geo-political context and regulations 39 6.9. Current Market State 40 6.9.1. USA vs.
  • Under Section 61.113 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958? Carmen E

    Under Section 61.113 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958? Carmen E

    DOES EXPENSE-SHARING AMONG PRIVATE PILOTS CONSTITUTE “COMPENSATION” UNDER SECTION 61.113 OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958? CARMEN E. WEITE* I. INTRODUCTION In times with constant changes and advances in technology, courts and legislators have the power to embrace and accept these in- novations, or conversely, strictly regulate them to their ultimate de- mise. Ride-sharing mobile applications, such as Uber and Lyft, con- nect riders and drivers over the internet and have redefined the automobile transportation market. As a result of this innovation, leg- islatures have enacted new laws as well as broadened interpretations of existing laws that would otherwise prohibit the ride-sharing con- cept.1 Recently, AirPooler.com (“AirPooler”) and Flytenow, Inc. (“Flytenow”) expanded the ride-sharing concept from automobiles to general aviation by creating online platforms that connect private pi- lots to passengers who are willing to share the cost of the flight.2 However, when confronted with interpreting the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 as applied to these companies, the Federal Aviation Admin- istration (“FAA”) concluded AirPooler and Flytenow allowed private pilots to act as “common carriers” without proper certification, and 3 ultimately, the FAA forced AirPooler and Flytenow to shut down. In * Candidate, J.D., May 2018, Cumberland School of Law; B.S.B.A., Finance, University of Florida, 2015; FAA Licensed Private Pilot. The author would like to thank Professor Woodrow Hartzog for his guidance throughout the research, drafting, and revision stages of this comment as well as Rebecca MacPherson for her willingness to share her exper- tise and insight with regard to this topic.
  • Business Plan De Airstripe.Com

    Business Plan De Airstripe.Com

    Proyecto Final de Carrera Ingeniería Industrial Desarrollo del business plan de airstripe.com Jonathan García Jonathan MEMORIA Autor: Jonathan García Director: Anastasi Pérez Peral Convocatoria: Enero 2016 geniería Industrial geniería In Enero 2016 Enero 2 Memoria Business Plan de Airstripe.com 3 4 Memoria Business Plan de Airstripe.com 5 1. Resumen del proyecto Este proyecto de final de carrera tiene como objetivo evaluar la puesta en marcha y viabilidad de negocio de una aerolínea social, que basa sus operaciones en internet. El proyecto, denominado Airstripe, tiene como finalidad crear un nuevo concepto de aerolínea, adaptado a las nuevas tecnologías y que solucione los principales retos a los que se enfrenta la industria del transporte aéreo de pasajeros. La redacción de este proyecto consta de la memoria, dividida en dos partes, y anexos. En la primera se detalla el ‘business plan’ o plan de negocio. El plan de negocio incluye un extenso estudio de mercado y de investigación, así como una previsión financiera durante los primeros cinco años de funcionamiento. De manera complementaria, se incluyen anexos con detalles sobre el concepto de negocio y el prototipo en desarrollo, así como la bibliografía y estudios utilizados para la elaboración de este proyecto. Siendo un proyecto empresarial que requiere de gran inversión inicial y contactos en la industria, es previsible que el proyecto requiera de una sustancial dedicación adicional. No obstante, tras haber trabajado alrededor de 5 meses en el plan de negocio, se despejan algunas de las incógnitas iniciales, mientras que se confirman hipótesis clave de negocio, necesarias para proseguir con su implantación.
  • Comments on Restatement of Employment Law (Third), Chapter 1

    Comments on Restatement of Employment Law (Third), Chapter 1

    Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons Faculty Scholarship 2017 Comments on Restatement of Employment Law (Third), Chapter 1 Charlotte Garden Joseph E. Slater Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charlotte Garden and Joseph E. Slater, Comments on Restatement of Employment Law (Third), Chapter 1, 21 Em. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J. 265 (2017). https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/805 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS ON RESTATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT LAW (THIRD), CHAPTER 1 BY CHARLOTTE GARDEN* AND JOSEPH E. SLATER** I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 266 II. THE JOINT EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP. ................ 266 A. The Joint-Employment Test from Browning-Ferris Industries of California: Potentialor Indirect Control......267 B. The Restatement Comment Does Not Resolve the "Indirect" or "Potential"Control Issue......... ......... 269 C. The Reporters' Note Does Not Resolve This Issue.............271 D. The NLRA and Beyond: Recent Joint-Employment Cases Under Various Statutes......... ............. 272 1. Related Issues Under the NLRA: Bargaining Units and Franchising... .......................... 272 2. Title VII .......................................274 3. Wage and Hour Statutes ................... 274 E. Browning-Ferris of California is the Better Approach......276 III. UNPAID INTERNS ..........................................279 A. Introduction. .................................. 279 B. Problems With the Restatement's Approach to the Topic.......................................280 C. Students Working at EducationalInstitutions They Attend............. ................... ..... 281 D. Students Working for Other Employers ......
  • Rise to the Challenge

    Rise to the Challenge

    THINK ACT BEYOND MAINSTREAM March 2017 MasteringRise to the thechallenge TheTransformation risks and opportunities of digitization Journey for airports A comprehensive guide to reinventing companies 2 THINK ACT Digital airports FOLLOW THE LINE: THE PASSENGER THE BIG AND OPERATIONS JOURNEY 3 P. 5 USD 2.5 to 5 billion in revenues could be lost by airports over the next five years unless action is taken. Page 8 3 to 6% is the associated share of operating margins at risk. Page 8 60% of European airports have a Chief Digital Officer driving digital innovation. Page 7 THINK ACT 3 Digital airports Industry pundits are hailing digitization as the golden ticket to generating new opportunities at airports. We sound a note of caution. Today's airport industry is awash with buzzwords. ly on some of the exciting opportunities for airports Mobile check-in apps, self-service bag drop, indoor below. geo-location, electronic bag tags, interactive digital Alongside the undeniable opportunities for airport displays – everything boils down to one thing: The operators, a whole swathe of new challenges and digital revolution is here and it's transforming the air- threats have emerged, from mastering the technical, port industry. cultural and legal challenges of digitization to the risk In the airport business, digitization is considered of losing passengers to alternative flight experiences, synonymous with opportunity. Industry pundits are hemorrhaging duty-free sales and a decline in the use hailing the changes associated with digitization as the of airport parking services. Airport operators need to golden ticket to generating new revenue-earning possi- find a way to deal with these threats now if they are to bilities at airports.
  • Learning from Failures in the Sharing Economy

    Learning from Failures in the Sharing Economy

    The University of Manchester Research Learning from Failures in the Sharing Economy Document Version Accepted author manuscript Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer Citation for published version (APA): Taeuscher, K., & Kietzmann, J. (2017). Learning from Failures in the Sharing Economy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(4), 253–263. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol16/iss4/2/ Published in: MIS Quarterly Executive Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Takedown policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing relevant details, so we can investigate your claim. Download date:01. Oct. 2021 Learning from Failures in the Sharing Economy Karl Täuscher Bayreuth University Prieserstraße 2, 95444 Bayreuth, Germany [email protected] Jan Kietzmann Simon Fraser University 500 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 1W6, Canada [email protected] Täuscher, K., & Kietzmann, J. 2017. Learning from Failures in the Sharing Economy. Management Information Systems Quarterly Executive, 16(4): 253–263. The publisher’s post-print is available at: http://misqe.org/ojs2/index.php/misqe/article/view/797 Acknowledgment: We thank the participants in the Special Issue’s paper development workshop at the HICCS 2017 for their insights and expertise that greatly assisted the research.
  • Defining Common Carriers: Flight Sharing, the FAA, and the Future of Aviation

    Defining Common Carriers: Flight Sharing, the FAA, and the Future of Aviation

    Defining Common Carriers Flight Sharing, the FAA, and the Future of Aviation Christopher Koopman MERCATUS WORKING PAPER All studies in the Mercatus Working Paper series have followed a rigorous process of academic evaluation, including (except where otherwise noted) at least one double-blind peer review. Working Papers present an author’s provisional findings, which, upon further consideration and revision, are likely to be republished in an academic journal. The opinions expressed in Mercatus Working Papers are the authors’ and do not represent official positions of the Mercatus Center or George Mason University. Christopher Koopman. “Defining Common Carriers: Flight Sharing, the FAA, and the Future of Aviation.” Mercatus Working Paper, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, 2017. Abstract In January 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a case brought by Flytenow, a flight-sharing startup, against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). While Flytenow’s legal challenge ended when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, on policy grounds the company continues to have the better argument. Ultimately, the flight-sharing industry was shut down because the FAA can define common carriage expansively in its guidance and interpret that definition without oversight. Congress should intervene by explicitly defining common carriage narrowly in statute. This paper discusses private pilots’ traditional right to share costs and why such cost-sharing matters for general aviation. Next, the paper shows that Flytenow tried to comply with this traditional framework and previous interpretations of aviation law, and it discusses the company’s legal travails. There is a possible remedy: Congress could unwind the FAA’s confused flight-sharing rulings by simply defining common carrier more narrowly in statute.