Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A class action authorization is sought on behalf of compliant short-term rental operators in Québec who allegedly suffered revenue losses due to Airbnb's facilitation of illegal listings.
• Central fault alleged is Airbnb's failure to verify, authenticate, and enforce CITQ registration certificates before publishing or maintaining listings on its platform.
• At the authorization stage, the court applies a "defensible cause" threshold — factual allegations in the application are presumed true unless implausible or manifestly inaccurate.
• Admissibility of sworn declarations is limited to neutral, objective matters relevant to the four authorization criteria, not contested defenses or merits-stage arguments.
• Airbnb's Terms of Service and contractual obligations between Airbnb and hosts were deemed irrelevant, as the claim is grounded in civil liability for unfair competition, not breach of contract.
• Québec Ministry of Tourism compliance reports (R-5, R-6) were excluded as they were neither incontestable nor sufficiently useful at the authorization stage to establish causation.

Airbnb faces Québec class action over illegal short-term rentals: A look at the authorization hearing

Background and facts

On May 5, 2026, the Superior Court of Québec (Class Actions Division) issued a ruling in 9279-2084 Québec inc. c. Airbnb inc., 2026 QCCS 1659, presided over by Justice Pierre Nollet. The matter concerns an application to authorize a class action against seven Airbnb-related entities — Airbnb, Inc., Airbnb Canada Inc., Airbnb Ireland Unlimited Company, Airbnb Payments UK Limited, Airbnb Payments Canada Inc., Luxury Retreats International ULC, and Airbnb Travel LLC — collectively referred to as the Airbnb Group.

The proposed plaintiff class consists of all natural or legal persons who, at any time since September 12, 2022, operated or owned a duly registered and compliant tourist accommodation establishment in Québec and suffered revenue losses and/or rate compression attributable to Airbnb's facilitation of illegal short-term rentals.

The named plaintiff, 9279-2084 Québec inc., is a corporate entity that operated registered tourist accommodations and listed properties on the Airbnb platform. It alleges that during the relevant period, thousands of non-compliant short-term rental listings were published, maintained, and monetized on Airbnb's platform in violation of several Québec statutes and regulations, including the Act respecting tourist accommodation, the Act to combat illegal tourist accommodation, the Regulation respecting tourist accommodation, applicable municipal bylaws, and relevant fiscal and insurance obligations.

The alleged fault: Failure to govern the platform

At the heart of the claim is the allegation that Airbnb failed to implement adequate governance, verification, and moderation mechanisms to prevent the diffusion and maintenance of non-compliant listings. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the Airbnb entities were legally obligated — under articles 20.1 and 20.2 of the Act respecting tourist accommodation and provisions of the Act respecting the Québec sales tax — to verify the existence and validity of CITQ (Corporation de l'industrie touristique du Québec) registration certificates before publishing listings, display the certificate number and expiry date on each listing, prohibit listings lacking valid registration, and refrain from concluding transactions for unregistered establishments.

The plaintiff argues that by failing to do so, Airbnb enabled unlicensed operators to compete on an uneven playing field with compliant hotel and accommodation operators who bear the full burden of regulatory compliance costs — including licensing fees, permits, insurance, and tax obligations. The alleged harm manifested in reduced Average Daily Rates (ADR), lower Revenue per Available Room (RevPAR), decreased occupancy rates, and devaluation of investments made by compliant operators.

The evidentiary dispute at the authorization stage

The ruling addresses a contested pre-authorization evidentiary motion — specifically, Airbnb's request to introduce certain evidence it deemed necessary for the court's analysis. The defendants sought to file: (1) a sworn declaration from a representative of Airbnb Ireland explaining the corporate structure, platform operations, and contractual framework; (2) various versions of the platform's Terms of Service (TOS) accepted by the plaintiff; (3) a land registry index of the plaintiff's properties listed on Airbnb; (4) internet pages describing the plaintiff's listed properties; and (5) two Québec Ministry of Tourism compliance reports on Airbnb and VRBO listings from early 2024 and early 2025.

The court's analysis and rulings on each piece of evidence

The court undertook a detailed review of the applicable principles governing evidentiary motions at the authorization stage. It reiterated that courts must apply a liberal interpretation of the authorization criteria as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Infineon Technologies AG c. Option consommateurs, 2013 CSC 59 and Vivendi Canada Inc. c. Dell'Aniello, 2014 CSC 1. The factual allegations in the authorization application are to be presumed true unless implausible or manifestly inaccurate. Evidence at this stage must be directed at the four statutory authorization criteria — not the merits of the case.

Regarding the sworn declaration, the court partially authorized its filing. It rejected paragraphs describing how hosts and guests use the platform, Airbnb's non-ownership of listings, the contractual responsibilities of hosts under the TOS, and the absence of Airbnb Group entities as parties to guest-host contracts. These were found either irrelevant to the group definition or constitutive of contested defenses inappropriate for the authorization stage. However, the court authorized paragraph 25 of the declaration, which identifies the acquisition and sale dates of the plaintiff's properties — information potentially relevant to defining the temporal scope of the class.

Regarding the Terms of Service, the court refused their admission. Since the plaintiff's claim is grounded in civil liability for unfair competition — not breach of contract — the contractual relationship between Airbnb and the plaintiff was deemed irrelevant to the authorization analysis.

Regarding the land registry index (R-3), the court authorized it in conjunction with paragraph 25 of the sworn declaration, as it may bear on the group's definition.

Regarding the internet pages describing the plaintiff's specific properties (R-4), the court refused them. For authorization purposes, it suffices that the plaintiff operated a tourist accommodation establishment — the specific features of individual listings are not relevant at this stage.

Regarding the Ministry of Tourism compliance reports (R-5 and R-6), the court refused their admission. The defendants sought to use these to undermine the plaintiff's reliance on a February 2023 data image (P-11) showing that 79% of approximately 29,482 Airbnb listings in Québec were uncertified and allegedly illegal. The defendants argued that the compliance landscape had materially changed following two major legislative tightening periods in March 2023 and September 2024, and that the post-reform data in R-5 and R-6 would demonstrate the plaintiff could not establish the required causal link between Airbnb's conduct and the alleged harm.

The court was unpersuaded. It noted that R-5 itself contained significant methodological caveats — the underlying data source (AirDNA) did not draw data directly from the platforms but from public web scraping, and the report acknowledged it could not verify whether displayed registration numbers actually corresponded to the relevant listings. The court also noted that the plaintiff's case was not solely dependent on P-11. The core authorization question was whether the plaintiff had adduced facts supporting the existence of a measurable harm — a decline in sectoral indicators (RevPAR, ADR, and occupancy rates) attributable to demand being diverted to non-compliant listings — and whether the legal syllogism supporting that claim was defensible. Questions of causation and expert evidence are matters for the merits. The reports were neither incontestable nor useful enough to resolve the causal question at the authorization stage.

Outcome

The court partially granted the defendants' evidentiary motion. Only paragraph 25 of the sworn declaration of Dominick Huber (R-1) and the accompanying land registry index (R-3) were admitted as appropriate evidence for the authorization hearing. All other proposed evidence — including the Terms of Service, internet property pages, and the Ministry of Tourism compliance reports — was excluded.

The successful party on the evidentiary motion was the plaintiff, 9279-2084 Québec inc., which successfully opposed the bulk of the defendants' proposed evidence. Costs were reserved to follow. As this was a procedural ruling on the admissibility of evidence at the authorization stage — not a final judgment on the merits — no monetary award was made, and no total amount was ordered in favor of any party at this time. The authorization hearing itself is expected to proceed on the basis of the limited evidence now admitted.