It's like when people still refer to Ubers in San Francisco as 'illegal taxis'. There's nothing illegal about them, they're regulated by the California PUC.

It's an important question though, mainly because it comes up every time people have a passionate, and perhaps legitimate, disagreement about what the law ought to be.

High school debates aside, I think almost everyone agrees that civil disobedience is sometimes completely justified. People also almost universally agree that breaking every law you don't like, simply because you don't think it should be the law, would not be justified.

So, where do regulations on short term rentals fit in?

My initial reaction is that this is an easy one. I don't think that regulations on converting a house to a hotel get anywhere close to the standard I'd expect for what wikipedia defines as a "active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole"…

That said, I would give the nod to people who would seek to violate some types of zoning regulations. It is certainly possible for zoning regulations (school districts, voting districts, and so forth) to reach vile levels of class and race discrimination. A lot of people, for instance, might want to keep a boarding house for migratory workers out of their district - a ban on short term rentals could accomplish this.

In the case of airbnb, I would see that as a bit of manipulation, though - in general, what I'm seeing is housing that used to be occupied by long term residents, especially children who cost a lot of money and don't pay rent, getting evicted and turned into a fun crash pad for tourists who would like to spend a while in the wine country or the left bank of Paris. I personally think that short term rentals are a real threat to neighborhoods like the french quarter in New Orleans, large sections of San Francisco, and, sure, Berlin.

In short, while I leave the door slightly open for meaningful civil disobedience to excessively restrictive zoning laws that curtail short term rentals, I don't see many of the current measures as coming anywhere close to the standard for civil disobedience.

You'll never get an airtight argument as solid as a mathematical proof on this, though. It just isn't like that.

AirBnB is just a platform. It is, by itself, legal. However, virtually everyone who uses AirBnB uses it illegally.

Thus, it's not illegal (because AirBnB the service is not forbidden) but it's not legal (because it's hard to use the service without breaking the law, and in practice almost nobody does what's required).

That said, I suspect that you and I have deeply differing views on laws and regulations around how property can be developed and used. I live in what was designated as a "single family" residential area in San Francisco. It is a little expensive, and many people are starting to convert the garages into (probably illegal) in-laws. Paving over the front lawn to make a parking spot for the new tenant is also a common occurrence. Not surprisingly, families with children are having trouble competing on price with people who 1) don't have the burden of children, and 2) vastly increase their income by having tenants in what is now essentially a downstairs flat. I do think it is reasonable for neighborhoods to seek regulations against this kind of conversion - that doesn't mean I necessarily support it in all forms, but I don't necessarily see it as a vile law that should simply be disregarded as an act of civil disobedience.

I suspect that airbnb is running afoul of laws that limit short-term rentals because neighborhoods want to remain "residential", that is, they don't want to become a neighborhood of vacationers. This issue comes up most in neighborhoods that are attractive to vacationers but still have a large local population (the left bank of paris, an arts district in santa fe, etc). It typically isn't an issue in a country club in palm springs (in fact, some of these communities have a rule against long term residents!)

In short, I agree with you that cartels and regulatory capture can get to the point where civil disobedience is warranted, but I'm immediately skeptical of arguments that regulations designed to limit short term rentals fall under this category.

And while I welcome Airbnb's attention to the issue and the basic first-order attempt at doing the right thing, I also see this as an insidious way for Airbnb to shirk the responsibilities that come with public accommodation, and a lack of imagination on the ways they could contribute to a just world.

While I agree that not all things illegal is toxic or terrible, knowing what we know about "disruptive" companies and the persona behind them, I think it is a safe bet in this case.

If you don't like the law, you can vote, run for office, volunteer, donate to a candidate or nonprofit, or bother your elected officials. I'm no fan of lobbying ("corruption in anything but name"—sweetheart gigs for sympathetic representatives once they get out of office), but it's legal for AirBnb to do this too.

We can disagree about laws but not following/enforcing laws because you disagree with them (for most part) is a recipe for disaster.

For instance, renting a room inside your home to visitors, while you continue to occupy the home, is perfectly legal almost everywhere. Often, there is little or no regulation to comply with. (For example, actual BnBs.)

But many, many, many of AirBnB's rentals are illegal flophouses. Entire-apartment rentals inside established buildings, or flophouses with 2-4-6-8 bedrooms rented to unrelated strangers, with a maintenance service that comes by to turn down the beds. Those are where the money are at.