[baddox]

No, I think it's reasonable to look at who is benefited and harmed by a regulation. The morality of contract killing is probably not very controversial. The vast majority of people would oppose it even if no laws or government existed.

[digitaltrees]

I agree, my point is that it is a balance. My example is far to the extreme. And I concede that AirBnB has a reasonable argument that the regulations should apply to them since there are real, and important factual differences in the way they operate.

That being said, as you point out, we should look at the benefit and harm of a policy, if existing business are harmed that is a relevant factor. I think it is reasonable, that has a general and universal rule, companies should operate under the same set of rules. The difficulty is that AirBnB, may not fit into existing categories of an industry and regulatory framework. So how do we determine which set of rules to apply, or whether any should? How do we determine what a company is doing that is subject to regulation?

Perhaps a good starting point is to look and the product/service and customer segment. Thus, where two companies are providing an interchangeable good/service, to the same customer segment, they seem to be direct competitors and as such, I think it is reasonable to apply the same rules or we are allowing one party to benefit from regulatory arbitrage.