Airbnb tried to fight it but they lost.

The fact of the matter is that most Airbnb listings in NYC are illegal, and pretty much everyone I know that lists their place on it is aware it's against the law. They do it anyways.

Airbnb is trying to cooperate as best they can without giving up too much of their users privacy as they need to get laws changed here in NYC (and other cities) if they want to keep operating in these markets.

> The fact of the matter is that most Airbnb listings in NYC are illegal

Full-apartment listings, yes. As I understand it, many listings renting out a shared part of the living space in which the leaseholder also lives (and is present) are legal, since that's considered taking in a short-term boarder, not subletting, which is allowed in NYC (and in fact protected as a tenant right, even if the landlord tries to ban it in the rental contract).

Last year, this fellow named Warren tried that logic in NYC. It didn't work too well. The Verge ran a piece about it back in May 2013.

> The law seems to include an exemption for hosts who rent out an extra room or couch to a "lawful boarder" for less than 30 days, but remain in the dwelling while the guest is there. Because Warren's roommate was home while his Russian boarder was there, he argued that the exemption should apply. However, the judge interpreted the terms "boarders and lodgers" in the law to mean "occupants who share the life of the dwelling with its permanent occupants" and not to "complete strangers who have no, and are not intended to have any, relationship with the permanent occupant." Because the Russian visitor did not interact with Warren or his roommate, the judge said, the exemption should not apply.

That last sentence is an interesting interpretation of the judge's decision, but the rest of it is pretty spot on. The opinion in question is here: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702734/decision-and-or... [PDF]

Ah, that's interesting. That seems like it would still allow a "classic" boarder, who interacts more with the household, including typically eating meals along with the household rather than only renting a room (as in "room and board"), not purely renting out a room. But probably safer if there is also some other connection (friend-of-a-friend, etc.), reading the other bits of the blurb.

Yeah, it seems like the judge is making an effort to let you have friends and friends-of-friends, just not customers. It's worth noting that this is an opinion from Administrative Law Judge, which is about a half-dozen appeals from the State's highest court, the Court of Appeals. So there are plenty of judges who could overrule this in the next few years.