Airbnb V. San Francisco

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 78 Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 910 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 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Case No. 3:16-cv-03615-JD </li><li style="flex:1">AIRBNB, INC., </li></ul>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. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Place: </li><li style="flex:1">Courtroom 11 </li></ul>CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">FRANCISCO, </li><li style="flex:1">Trial Date: </li><li style="flex:1">Not set </li></ul>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<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">I. </li><li style="flex:1">The Communications Decency Act Does Not Preempt San Francisco’s </li></ul>Ordinance.................................................................................................................5 6<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">A. </li><li style="flex:1">Binding Ninth Circuit Precedent Establishes That the CDA Does Not </li></ul>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<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">B. </li><li style="flex:1">Airbnb’s and Homeaway’s Contrary Arguments Fail. ..............................11 </li></ul>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 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">II. </li><li style="flex:1">San Francisco’s Ordinance Comports with the First Amendment.........................16 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">A. </li><li style="flex:1">The First Amendment Does Not Apply, Because San Francisco’s </li></ul>Ordinance is Directed to Conduct, not Speech. .........................................16 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">B. </li><li style="flex:1">Any Speech That The Ordinance May Burden Is Only Illegal and </li></ul>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 in:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136254.docx Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 36 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 12Federal Cases 800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. GoTo.com, Inc. 3 437 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.N.J. 2006)............................................................................................11 4Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc. 2004 WL 49100036 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2004)...........................................................................14 5Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc. 6 421 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (N.D. Cal. 2006).................................................................................9, 11 7Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper 8 939 F. Supp. 2d 805 (M. D. Tenn. 2013)................................................................11, 14, 15, 24 9Backpage.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 3DISH Network Corp. v. FCC 4 653 F.3d 771 (9th Cir.2011) ........................................................................................................5 5Doe v. Factfinder Network, Inc. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">6</li><li style="flex:1">540 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D.N.H. 2008)...........................................................................................15 </li></ul>7Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc. 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................6, 8, 11, 15 8Fair 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 3Inman v. Technicolor USA, Inc. 4 2011 WL 5829024 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2011)...........................................................................13 5Klein v. City of San Clemente 6 584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.2009) ......................................................................................................5 7Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 3632375 (9th Cir. July 7, 2016)..................................................................20 8Metro 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 3Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky 4 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2009) ......................................................................................................5 5Thalheimer v. City of San Diego 6 645 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................5 7Thompson v. Western States Medical Center 535 U.S. 357 (2002) ..................................................................................................................24 8U.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 vn:\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 3Federal Statutes 4<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">5</li><li style="flex:1">47 United States Code </li></ul>Section 230(c)(1) ...................................................................................................................6, 11 6Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 Section 65(c)..............................................................................................................................28 8San 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.

Airbnb V. San Francisco

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support