Airbnb, Miami Beach Disagree Over Whether $380K Settlement is for Attorney Fees
Although the two parties settled a federal lawsuit, the short-term rental company and city have issued conflicting statements on a $380,000 payment Airbnb is proffering to Miami Beach. The city has repeatedly stated the money is to cover its attorney fees in light of Airbnb's "frivolous" lawsuit, while the language of the settlement and Airbnb's remarks say the money's purpose is open-ended.
August 06, 2019 at 03:23 PM
3 minute read
Airbnb and the City of Miami Beach can’t seem to find a consensus on the particulars of an agreement hashed out in federal court.
A statement provided by Miami Beach on its settlement with Airbnb in a suit over the city’s short-term rental regulations said a $380,000 payment detailed in the agreement is being made explicitly to cover the cost of attorney fees accrued during the litigation.
“Airbnb, recognizing that they were going to unequivocally lose the federal lawsuit against the City of Miami Beach, agreed to pay the municipality $380,000 for its attorney fees expended in defense of their frivolous federal lawsuit,” the statement said, adding the company would be complying with Miami Beach rules that require the site to display the resort tax account and business tax receipt numbers of hosts looking to rent out properties.
“Airbnb will be prohibited from displaying any listing that does not have these numbers, and will be subject to fines and penalties for failure to comply with the disclosure requirement of the ordinance,” the city said.
The statement’s characterization of Airbnb’s lawsuit as frivolous was shared in accompanying remarks by Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber.
“Obviously this was a frivolous lawsuit and it was wise of Airbnb to pay our legal fees as part of its resolution,” Gelber said. “They will now have to comply with the city ordinance.”
Read the stipulations of the settlement:
The city’s description of the $380,000 payment’s purpose is seemingly at odds with the stipulations of the case’s dismissal and settlement. Although the settlement requires Airbnb to provide the money to Miami Beach, its purpose is said to be up to Miami Beach’s discretion. The filing said the money may be used ” to educate residents about home-sharing rules and/or for the enforcement of” the city’s rules surrounding short-term rentals.
Elsewhere in the document Airbnb’s lawsuit is said to be dismissed without prejudice and “ with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs,” contrasting with Miami Beach’s depiction of the payment almost as a sanction against Airbnb for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Miami Beach’s lead attorney, Carlton Fields shareholder Richard Ovelman, did not immediately return requests for comment.
Melissa Berthier, Miami Beach’s assistant director of communications, reaffirmed the city’s previous statement on the settlement when pressed for clarification on the disparity.
“The money paid by Airbnb was to reimburse the city’s attorney’s fees in defense of this frivolous lawsuit,” Berthier said in an email.
Airbnb rebutted Miami Beach’s assertion that the settlement specifically provides for the money to be used as compensation for the city’s legal costs.
“The characterization Airbnb will directly be paying attorney’s fees is incorrect,” the company said in a statement, citing paragraph 10 of the settlement’s stipulations. “The settlement states the city is able to use its money to its discretion.”
Related stories:
Airbnb, Miami Beach Settlement Requires Listers to Show Tax Receipts
Bad News for Airbnb: Miami Court Reinstates Ban on Vacation Rentals
City of Miami Beach Challenged for Excessive Fines in Suit Over Short-Term Rental Ordinance
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Close Our Borders?' Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Economics, Legal Predicate for Mass Deportation Proposal
3 minute readBig Law Assembles as Cruise Lines Clinch Partial Victory in $439M Havana Docks Suit
Marriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1How Gibson Dunn Lawyers Helped Assemble the LA FireAid Benefit Concert in 'Extreme' Time Crunch
- 2Lawyer Wears Funny Ears When Criticizing: Still Sued for Defamation
- 3Medical Student's Error Takes Center Stage in High Court 'Agency' Dispute
- 4'A Shock to the System’: Some Government Attorneys Are Forced Out, While Others Weigh Job Options
- 5Lackawanna County Lawyer Fails to Shake Legal Mal Claims Over Sex With Client
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250