[PeterisP]

Bribe would be accurate if they were offering payment outside someone else's remediation process.

Apparently payments+NDA are part of the remediation process that they actually set up in practice.

There's also no reason to assume why a private remediation process should be universal and the same for everyone, it's not a court - it would be unfair to close down options that they advertised, but it's completely reasonable to offer extra options on a case-by-case basis if they want, even if they weren't included in the advertised remediation process.

The only thing that's might be viewed as dishonest is that their statement "The Host Guarantee will reimburse eligible hosts for damages up to $1,000,000." doesn't explicitly mention that certain conditions apply on how the Host Guarantee is implemented; though it does say 'eligible hosts' which quite likely is explained in the full Host Guarantee text as 'hosts that, among other things, agree to an NDA'.

[supercanuck]

If everything is case-by-case and determined by "eligibility," what is the purpose of the word Guarantee here, and funds released are subject to conditions having nothing to do with the actual rental (e.g. an NDA)?

Seems to me, using the words "Guarantee", "Trust" "Peace of Mind" is no different than the customer using the term "Bribe".

but maybe this is just situation where consumers need law degrees to fully understand what it is they are getting.

AirBNB relies on economies of scale, so the remediation process should be the same for everyone since the contract is more than likely the same too, and if it is not, then "Trust", "Guarantee", "Peace of mind" are the wrong words to being used to advertise the service.

The core reason Bribe is being used, is because AirBnB was withholding payment for something that they advertised as part of the service and would only release it in exchange for an NDA. That IS dishonest.

[PeterisP]

But they ARE honestly fulfilling the guarantee - the host is able to get the requested damages. Yes, it's not an unconditional, no questions asked compensation, but it's not advertised as such. Terms and conditions apply, just as it's reasonable to expect e.g. paperwork and evidence of damages before funds are released. It would be dishonest if they had included terms or conditions that are unreasonable or difficult to fulfil, but an NDA isn't such a condition; it doesn't disqualify anyone who wants to finalize the dispute. Just as it would be very reasonable if the release of funds was conditional on an agreement not to sue for further damages, i.e., that the guarantee happens only if it's agreed to be the final resolution of this matter.

The described events don't seem to violate any promise that was actually advertised, the only mismatch is between reality and wishful thinking.

[supercanuck]

You may think it is perfectly reasonable to have the customer sign an NDA before the warranty work or guarantee is fulfilled, but I find it dishonest and ridiculous.