On Monday, September 8, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana delivered a decisive victory to the City of New Orleans in its efforts to regulate Short-Term Rentals (“STRs”). The underlying case was brought by a group of property owners and Airbnb, claiming that the City’s most recent iteration of STR regulations was unconstitutional. In Monday’s decision, the Court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims, with the exception of a narrow claim related to monthly reporting, on which the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Airbnb.

In Bodin v. City of New Orleans, the property owner plaintiffs challenged municipal ordinances passed by the City Council in 2023, which established the controversial one-per-square limit upon Non-Commercial STRs (“NSTRs”) and established a lottery system to determine which eligible property owner would receive the license. Meanwhile, Airbnb challenged 2024 ordinances that imposed new requirements upon STR platforms seeking to conduct business in New Orleans.

The property owner plaintiffs alleged that the 2023 ordinances violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Due Process, the Fourteenth Amendment the Fourth Amendment, and the Louisiana State Constitution. The property owner plaintiffs maintained that, but for the 2023 ordinances, they could operate profitable NSTRs. Airbnb, for its part, alleged that elements of the 2024 ordinances violate the Fourth Amendment, The Stored Communications Act, the Communications Decency Act, the First Amendment, and the Takings Clause. The City of New Orleans moved to dismiss all claims, while the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on all claims.

The opinion by presiding Judge Jay Zainey took a dim view of the plaintiffs’ “sprawling” allegations. In the most meaningful portion of the opinion, the Court ruled against the “novel legal theory of [plaintiffs’] own creation.” It held that “the right to lease property and the right to include paying customers on their properties” were not fundamental rights. That holding colored the rest of the opinion, as the Court incisively denied each of the plaintiffs’ claims. It denied the following claims, which are now dismissed:

• Count 1 – Per Se Takings Claim;
• Count 2 – Regulatory Takings Claim;
• Count 3 – Inverse Condemnation;
• Count 4 – Due Process;
• Count 5 – Void for Vagueness;
• Count 6 – Impermissible Regulation of Private, Civil Relationships (Louisiana Constitution);
• Count 8 – Stored Communications Act;
• Count 9 – Communications Decency Act;
• Count 10 – First Amendment; and
• Count 11 – Takings Clause.

The only good news for plaintiffs came when the Court analyzed Count 7 – a claim regarding rights under the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs had argued that the ordinances requiring platforms to verify hosts’ registration status (the "verification requirement") and those requiring platforms to submit monthly reports regarding booking transactions constitute an illegal search. After extensive analysis, the Court held that the verification requirement did not constitute an unreasonable search because hosts and the platform could have no reasonable expectation of privacy in data that they are already required to submit directly to the City.

• The total number of short-term rental properties for which booking transactions were facilitated by the platform during the applicable reporting period;
• The total number of exempt lodging business properties for which booking transactions were facilitated by the platform during the applicable reporting period:
• The Universal Resource Locator (URL) links of each short-term rental and exempt lodging business for which booking transactions were facilitated by the platform during the applicable reporting period;
• The confirmation code verifying eligibility for rental for each booking transaction facilitated by the platform during the applicable reporting period:
• The number of booking transactions facilitated for each short-term rental during the applicable reporting period;
• Whether each booking transaction facilitated by the platform was for an entire unit or a partial unit;
• A listing of dates during which the short-term rental was rented as part of a booking transaction facilitated by the platform during the applicable reporting period;
• The amount of rent paid as part of each booking transaction facilitated by the platform for a short-term rental; and
• An accounting of taxes and fees collected and paid by the platform as part of each booking transaction facilitated by the platform.
  

But, the required monthly reports were a different matter. The City’s ordinance required platforms to submit monthly reports that contained a number of datapoints, including the number of transactions booked, the number of excempt business properties, a URL for each STR and confirmation codes. Operators were also required to submit accountings of taxes, fees, and rent paid -- in addition to a listing of dates associated with any full-home or partial-home short-term rental during the reporting period.

The Court found that the individual plaintiffs had no interest in the information in the reports but that Airbnb had a legitimate expectation of privacy in all of the required information with the exception of the verification code. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Airbnb, solely with respect to the monthly reports.

This opinion marks a significant victory for the City of New Orleans, who closely followed the dictates of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hignell-Stark when crafting these ordinances. While the plaintiffs are likely to appeal, the Fifth Circuit seems unlikely to take issue with a roadmap it essentially drew for the City. Property owners can expect a continuation of the higher level of enforcement as platforms will fall in line with the verification process.

For more information, contact Graham Williams at graham@snw.law.