Airbnb, which has its European, Middle East and Africa headquarters in Dublin, has successfully opposed High Court proceedings requiring it to reinstate the account of a Colombian property letting company which was terminated due to concerns about a breach of its ban on listings for sex tourism.
Medellín-based Turisvivienda SAS operates a portfolio of short-term rentals in the Colombian city which are close to the nightlife area and described as akin to Dublin’s Temple Bar.
Turisvivienda brought injunction proceedings in the High Court against Airbnb Ireland Unlimited Company as under the terms of service between the parties, the Irish courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes between them.
Judge Marguerite Bolger refused the injunction application saying she was not satisfied that Turisvivienda had established a strong case that it will succeed at trial that Airbnb’s conclusions before it disabled the account were unreasonable, groundless and/or unlawful.
The judge said that under its terms of service relating to its sex tourism policy, Airbnb does not permit paid sexual services at a listing, even in locations where these activities are legal.
She said there are long-standing issues in Colombia, and in particular in Medellín, in relation to sex tourism and sex trafficking. Sex work is not illegal in Colombia for sex workers aged 18 years or over.
Since September 2024, Airbnb has actively engaged with the authorities in Medellín on this issue and has recently removed over 150 Medellín-based hosts from its platform under its policies on sex work.
Turisvivienda said it has also proactively put steps in place to prevent sex work in its properties which include 24-hour security, the display of an anti-sex tourism statement in its listing descriptions and around the properties and requiring all guests and visitors to sign a contract prohibiting sex work and providing personal ID.
On June 21st last year, Turisvivienda filed a safety report with Airbnb about a guest’s behaviour and was unhappy with the response to its complaint. Two days later, it was advised that, following investigation, its account was being terminated for violating the defendant’s sex work policies.
Turisvivienda appealed and provided documentary evidence on its policy to prevent sex tourism.
Airbnb later responded saying it had identified “direct on platform communications with booking guests that violate our Terms of Service, specifically our policies prohibiting sex tourism”.
It listed extracts from online conversations between Turisvivienda and its guests including references to the phrase “guest friendly”, which it described by Airbnb as “a common coded phrase used by sex tourists travelling to Colombia to connect with hosts that permit sex work in their listings”.
Airbnb also said that although this term is not solely an indicator of complicity in sex tourism, it is “a strong signal when observed in combination with other indicators”.
Turisvivinda’s founder and 90 per cent shareholder, David Emch, sought to have the dispute dealt with by arbitration at the International Centre for Dispute Resolution but an arbitrator found the ICDR lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim.
Last May Turisvivienda brought an application here for an injunction to have its account restored.
It claimed Airbnb was in breach of contract for reasons including that it failed to follow its own Terms of Service and by disabling its account for a reason not provided for in the contract.
As part of its case, an affidavit was sworn by one of its employees who responded to posts on the Airbnb system. The employee said she understood the use in some guest queries of the words “girls” and “chicks” not to refer to sex workers, but simply to be alternative terms to describe women.
She described her understanding of a message from a guest “get me a bride” as meaning “the fact that the guest was hoping to find someone to marry while visiting Medellin, and I did not think it appropriate or necessary for me to respond”.
Airbnb opposed the injunction application.
Bolger said it was not for the court to determine whether the communications did or did not indicate sex work but rather to decide whether Airbnb’s conclusion that they did was reasonable and lawful.
She was not satisfied Turisvivienda had established a strong case that it would succeed at trial.
She also said that in the absence of a statable claim that Turisvivienda’s financial viability is seriously at risk, its losses to date are entirely financial for which it can be adequately compensated in damages.