You are just incorrect. For example, Airbnb was required to comply with host registration and caps on short stay rentals in San Francisco (e.g. discussed in [0]). Airbnb is legally required to demonstrate its own compliance, separately from what laws govern hosts themselves.

It seems premature to claim whether Airbnb is subject to more laws like this or not. Many cities have enacted new regulations or sued Airbnb over failures to comply with existing laws, and it seems like a complex legal issue still in the midst of being hashed out.

[0]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Airbnb-loses-th...

Dude, that was my entire point. Airbnb was required, via legislation, to do something, thus they are doing it. Advocating that they do something without being required to is what I'm commenting on.

I think we’re talking past one another. Nobody is saying Airbnb must demonstrate compliance with laws they are not subject to. Instead, I’m saying they might be required to demonstrate compliance with existing laws (not special new laws) if various city-led lawsuits against them end up revealing that Airbnb had been subject to various types of regulation all along (despite Airbnb’s insistence to the contrary).