OPEN LETTER TO AIRBNB LEADERSHIP

Protect Responsible Hosting, Property Safety, and the Rights of Hosts

From the Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts

October 26, 2026

To Airbnb’s Executive Leadership,

The Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts writes to express our strong opposition to Airbnb’s new and forthcoming policies restricting house rules, limiting the use of supplemental rental agreements, and masking guest phone numbers through connected property-management software.

These changes, scheduled to take effect on October 26 and November 20, 2026, respectively, raise serious concerns about property safety, host accountability, guest communication, and Airbnb’s relationship with the hosts who make its platform possible.

We are joining hosts across the country and internationally who are asking Airbnb to reconsider these policies, listen to the people directly affected, and develop a more balanced approach to responsible short-term rental management.

We recognize Airbnb’s legitimate goals of protecting guests from unreasonable checkout demands, undisclosed contractual obligations, excessive fees, and unnecessary requests for personal information. We support clear disclosures, fair treatment, privacy protections, and a positive guest experience.

However, these objectives should not require Airbnb to eliminate reasonable safeguards that responsible hosts rely on to protect their properties, guests, neighbors, and businesses.

A policy designed to improve the guest experience must not leave hosts with greater responsibility and fewer practical tools to fulfill it.

1. House rules must reflect the realities of individual properties

Airbnb’s new approach to house rules risks treating fundamentally different properties as though they all operate under identical conditions.

Sonoma County is home to wine-country estates, rural vacation homes, family residences, properties with private wells and septic systems, homes in residential neighborhoods, and accommodations in areas vulnerable to wildfire and other emergencies. These properties have different operational and insurance requirements, safety considerations, and obligations to their communities.

Reasonable house rules are not simply preferences. They can address:

• Occupancy limits, visitor restrictions, and fire safety.
• Parking requirements and access for emergency vehicles.
• Quiet hours and the prevention of disturbances to neighbors.
• Safe use of firepits, hot tubs, pools, and outdoor amenities.
• Water conservation, septic-system protection, and responsible waste disposal.
• Pet supervision, smoking restrictions, and protection of property.
• Compliance with applicable permits, insurance conditions, and local requirements.

We agree that hosts should not impose excessive cleaning chores or unreasonable penalties on guests. But Airbnb must distinguish between unnecessary checkout tasks and legitimate requirements for safe, lawful, and responsible property use.

Hosts should be able to communicate reasonable, property-specific expectations clearly before booking so guests can make informed decisions.

We urge Airbnb to preserve that flexibility and ensure its automated listing-review systems recognize the difference between an unreasonable demand and a necessary safety or property-protection rule.

2. Rental agreements and ID verification serve legitimate purposes

Airbnb’s restrictions on supplemental rental agreements raise concerns about informed consent, accountability, and compliance with property-specific requirements.

A transparent rental agreement can document the terms of a stay, clarify occupancy and property-use conditions, communicate safety requirements, and establish a shared understanding of responsibilities. Depending on the property and jurisdiction, it may also help satisfy legal, insurance, or building requirements.

We understand Airbnb’s desire to prevent surprise contracts and terms that contradict a reservation. We do not support using supplemental agreements to introduce undisclosed charges, impose new material conditions after booking, or circumvent Airbnb’s consumer protections.

Nevertheless, a blanket restriction on rental agreements and ID verification when they are not legally required fails to recognize the legitimate needs of responsible property operators.

Requiring reasonable identification is not about invading guest privacy or creating unnecessary barriers. It is about accountability, protecting property, preventing unauthorized occupancy, and ensuring that hosts have appropriate safeguards when entrusting their homes to people they may never meet in person. In Sonoma County, where properties can be remote, lack on-site management, or have specific safety and insurance requirements, these safeguards can be particularly important.

Hosts should be permitted to establish clear, lawful, and proportionate identity-verification procedures when needed, provided that requirements are disclosed in advance and personal information is handled securely and in accordance with applicable privacy laws. Verification does not necessarily require retaining copies of sensitive documents; the objective is to confirm identity responsibly while minimizing unnecessary data collection.

Airbnb’s standard booking terms cannot necessarily address every property-specific obligation.

We therefore ask Airbnb to establish a clear, workable exception allowing supplemental agreements when they are:

• Disclosed to guests before booking.
• Consistent with the advertised listing and reservation terms.
• Reasonable, lawful, and relevant to the property.
• Free of undisclosed fees and conflicting obligations.

Protecting guests from abusive contracts and protecting hosts through legitimate agreements are compatible goals. Airbnb should not force hosts to choose between them.

3. Guest phone-number masking must not compromise safety

Reliable communication is a basic requirement of responsible hospitality.

Hosts need to contact guests about arrival arrangements, access difficulties, maintenance problems, unexpected property conditions, and time-sensitive safety concerns. In emergencies, communication delays can have serious consequences.

The introduction of temporary guest phone numbers for connected software, combined with restrictions on collecting independent contact information, raises concerns about whether hosts and property managers will retain reliable, practical communication options throughout a reservation.

This is especially important in Sonoma County, where rural properties may have inconsistent cellular coverage and where wildfire warnings, evacuations, power outages, road closures, and other emergencies can require rapid communication.

A host may need to reach a guest when an access gate malfunctions, a utility service fails, a dangerous condition develops, or an evacuation becomes necessary. A communication method that works only under certain technical conditions may not be sufficient in every circumstance.

We ask Airbnb to:

• Ensure hosts can reliably contact confirmed guests throughout their stays.
• Clarify how temporary numbers work with property-management systems and emergency procedures.
• Provide a dependable alternative when app-based messaging or masked numbers fail.
• Establish clear exceptions for emergencies and legally required communications.
• Publish practical guidance for hosts managing rural properties and properties with limited connectivity.

Hosts should not be expected to accept responsibility for guest safety while being left uncertain about whether their communication systems will work when urgently needed.

4. Host accountability must be matched by practical authority

Across these policy changes, a fundamental imbalance is emerging.

Hosts remain responsible for maintaining their properties, complying with applicable laws, managing insurance obligations, addressing guest misconduct, protecting neighbors from disturbances, and responding when problems occur.

Yet Airbnb is restricting some of the tools hosts have historically used to communicate expectations, document responsibilities, and manage guest relationships.

AirCover and Airbnb’s customer-support processes may provide valuable assistance, but they should not automatically be treated as complete substitutes for every property-specific safeguard, contractual arrangement, insurance protection, or operational procedure.

When an issue occurs, hosts may be the people who must respond first, arrange repairs, contact emergency services, manage neighbor complaints, or deal with the consequences of property damage.

The people who carry these responsibilities need clear rules, effective communication, and a meaningful role in determining how their properties are managed.

We ask Airbnb to review these policies collectively rather than in isolation and assess their cumulative effects on host safety, liability, operating costs, and the ability to comply with local obligations.

5. Local communities must be part of the conversation

Short-term rentals do not operate in a vacuum. They exist within communities with distinct environmental conditions, neighborhood expectations, licensing requirements, and public-safety concerns.

In Sonoma County, responsible hosting requires consideration of neighbors, local regulations, fire risk, water resources, waste management, and the character of residential and rural communities.

A standardized platform policy cannot anticipate every legitimate local requirement. Airbnb should provide flexibility for hosts to comply with applicable laws and documented property or building requirements while making those obligations transparent to guests.

We also urge Airbnb to consult local host coalitions before implementing major changes that affect how accommodations are operated.

The knowledge of experienced local hosts is an important resource. It should be incorporated into policy development rather than sought only after problems emerge.

6. Airbnb must restore meaningful consultation with hosts

A recurring concern among hosts is the perception that major decisions affecting their businesses are being made without adequate consultation.

Hosts invest substantial personal and financial resources in their properties. Many operate independent small businesses, and some depend on rental income to support their households and maintain their homes.

They deserve an opportunity to understand proposed changes, explain their practical consequences, and participate in developing workable solutions.

We support greater transparency and a stronger partnership between Airbnb and its host community. We ask Airbnb to engage the Host Advisory Board, independent hosts, professional property managers, and local host coalitions in a substantive review of these policies.

We also ask Airbnb to publish clear written guidance explaining how the new requirements will be applied, how exceptions will be assessed, how automated policy flags can be challenged, and what recourse hosts will have when legitimate requirements are incorrectly rejected.

Our formal requests

The Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts respectfully calls on Airbnb leadership to take the following actions:

1. Reconsider the new house-rules restrictions and preserve the ability of hosts to establish reasonable, lawful, clearly disclosed, property-specific requirements.
2. Revise the rental-agreement restrictions to allow transparent supplemental agreements that protect guests and hosts without contradicting Airbnb’s reservation terms.
3. Provide reliable guest-contact options that balance privacy with the practical requirements of property management, emergency response, and legal compliance.
4. Review the combined impact of these policies on host liability, property safety, guest accountability, insurance, local compliance, and operating costs.
5. Issue a written response to the Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts addressing these concerns and outlining Airbnb’s plans for further consultation.

Our commitment and our message

The Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts believes that a successful short-term rental platform depends on a fair partnership between the platform, its guests, and its hosts.

We want guests to enjoy safe, comfortable, and welcoming stays. We want hosts to operate responsibly and protect their investments. We want neighbors and communities to benefit from respectful conduct and compliance with local requirements.

These interests are not inherently in conflict.

The solution is not to eliminate reasonable house rules, prohibit legitimate agreements, or make dependable communication more difficult. The solution is to create policies that protect guests while recognizing the practical responsibilities hosts undertake every day.

We call on Airbnb to reconsider these changes, listen to the concerns being raised by hosts across the industry, and work collaboratively toward policies that are fair, transparent, and workable.

We stand ready to participate in a constructive dialogue and contribute our experience as hosts in Sonoma County.

Airbnb’s success was built in partnership with its hosts. Its future should be built that way, too.

Respectfully,

Sonoma County Coalition of Hosts & Friends

Carl R. Jaeger — President
Lindsay Darrimon — Vice President
Charles Metz — Board Member
Nathan Waldon — Board Member
Anish Patel — Board Member
Harman Jaji — Board Member