Volume 13, Issue 2 - Sharing Economy Markets and Human Rights

Rent-control laws limiting the rents private landlords can charge tenants are controversial in the United States. Critics have condemned rent control’s mandated wealth transfer from landlords to tenants, and economists have decried its negative effects on rental supply and quality. With the advent of the sharing economy, rent-controlled tenants can rent out their below-market units for short durations at market-level or premium prices, a practice I term “rent control sharing.” The reaction to rent-controlled tenants pocketing money from Airbnb and other homesharing sites at the expense of their hapless landlords has been negative. Yet, the sharing economy has not changed an essential feature of rent control: the redistribution of wealth from landlord to tenant. Instead, Airbnb and similar platforms have altered the form of the redistribution and the legal relations between landlord and tenant, and increased the salience of the wealth transfer from landlord to tenant. As a result, rent control sharing collides with public preferences for in-kind redistribution and stronger legal protections for property used personally or intimately. This Article explores how rent control sharing accentuates some of the flaws of rent control and fuels the debate over rent control’s future.

The changes created by platform-facilitated labor are considered fundamental challenges to the future of work. As more data accumulates on gender discrimination in online platforms, this Article explores how inequality is cultivated by platforms in the gig economy. Looking at technological architecture as organizational structure, this essay bridges a gap between three bodies of scholarship that have not yet been in conversation but considering them together is necessary if we are to think about gender equality in platform-facilitated labor. The first concerns data driven discrimination, the second concerns the role of platform affordances and the third concerns organizational policies. These point to the gender inequality regime that platforms may enact. Thus, the Article theoretically contributes to unpacking platforms’ role in perpetuating and institutionalizing gender inequality. Finally, it offers some suggestions on the ways in which law, policy and technology can disrupt the institutionalization of gender inequality in platform-facilitated labor.

In traditional sectors, the intervention of private parties in the regulatory system tends to be justified by their enhanced expertise, government cuts or efficiency gains. In the sharing economy (e.g., home-sharing services offered by Airbnb), quality control and regulatory tasks (e.g., inspections) are to, a great extent, informally delegated to online platforms and peer-to-peer communities that rate and review performance. These communities consist of users that do not have more than their personal experience and the guidance of online platforms to underpin their assessments. Existing literature has extensively criticized the reliability of these online reputational mechanisms, but it has overlooked other far-reaching effects of outsourcing regulatory tasks to private parties. This Article offers a more complete analysis of the regulatory value of online reputation. I argue that reputational mechanisms have the potential of creating democratic spaces where users can provide unique, regular, and first-hand insights that would otherwise be disregarded in a traditional regulatory system. Nevertheless, in their current form, these mechanisms still offer inadequate protection to the public values that typically underlie the regulation of certain services. This Article explains this problem by comparing the protection of public values in the sharing economy to that of traditional regulated sectors. This Article contributes to the literature by reflecting on whether the sharing economy is inviting us to rethink the broader involvement of citizens in the protection of public values and the challenges thereof. It suggests a framework to improve online reputational mechanisms and a better dialogue between traditional regulation and online reputation.

Online, or platform economy, is no different than offline economy. Platforms are in this day and age what land was in agrarian times and the means of production for the industrial revolution period — i.e., basic resources. As such, the prime questions to be addressed are the same as ever: who owns the resources, who controls them, who profits from them, and who makes the decisions regarding all of the above. Analyzing online economy by these parameters elicits three major categories: Online Capitalism — economic activities designed to maximize profits; Sharing Economy, using a substance-based definition — allowing underused resources to be used by others and adding social value: connecting people, contributing to the environment, and creating communities; and Platform Cooperativism — using online technology to promote economic and social goals and interests, as in the sharing notion, adding power-building components: ownership, control – democracy. This classification is both an identifying tool that allows for an objective evaluation of enterprises and a basis for future legislation and public policy that favors democratic and community-based enterprises. Platform Economy poses great threats: It allows for concentration of power, wealth and control, but it also holds great opportunities as it constructs mechanisms that enable mass participation in decision-making, and thus allows to develop a new and exciting future in which democracy re-claims its front seat, and people regain the power to make a difference.

Internet of Things, Internet of Everything and Internet of People are concepts suggesting that objects, devices, and people will be increasingly interconnected through digital infrastructure that will generate a growing gathering of data. Parallel to this development is the celebration of the smart city and sharing city as urban policy visions that by relying heavily on new technologies bear the promise of efficient and thriving cities. Law and policy scholarship have either focused on questions related to privacy, discrimination, security, or issues related to the production and use of big data, digital public services. Little or no attention has been paid to the disruptive impact of technological development on urban governance and city inhabitants’ rights of equal access, participation, management and even ownership, in order to understand whether and how technology can also enhance the protection of human rights and social justice in the city. This Article proposes complementing the technological and digital infrastructure with a legal and governance infrastructure, the Internet of Humans, by construing and injecting in the policy framework of the city the principle of Tech Justice. Building on a literature review and from an analysis of selected case studies, this Article stresses the dichotomy existing between the market-based and the society-based applications of technology, the first likely to increase the digital divide and the challenges to human rights in the city, the latter bearing the promise to promote equal access to technology in the city. The main argument advanced by this Article is that the principle of Tech Justice if embedded as an empirical dimension of smart city and sharing city policies can steer their developments in the direction of a more just and democratic city.