The sharing economy is transformative in that it decentralizes services by permitting direct transactions between individuals. A less recognized consequence is that it also decentralizes the geography of services, shifting their distribution away from major business districts and into residential communities. We present a three-part generalized theory for studying and developing policy responses to the arrival of these services in neighborhoods where they were not previously available. First, one must quantify the distribution of the new services across neighborhoods. Second, these geographic shifts in supply and demand can generate positive and negative externalities for communities, which might be hypothesized and tested for empirically. Third, policy responses can be developed based on the knowledge generated by components 1 and 2. We illustrate this proposed theory by examining the incursion of Airbnb short-term rentals into the neighborhoods of Boston, MA for 2010 to 2018. We demonstrate that Airbnb listings quickly grew into neighborhoods away from the downtown core where hotels are concentrated and hypothesize how this might increase investment in local buildings (measured through building permits), activity at local food establishments (measured through the number of new licenses), and crime (measured through 911 reports). We find initial evidence for increased investment through building permits and limited evidence for increased violent crime, but no evidence for increases in food establishments. This can then guide how cities regulate short-term rentals to maximize benefits and minimize negative impacts. We conclude by exploring how the theory might be applied to other forms of the sharing economy.

When companies like Uber and TaskRabbit appeared in Silicon Valley, there was a collective media swoon over these new app-based service-delivery corporations and their products. Pundits and journalists made it seem like these companies were ushering in not only an inevitable future, but a desirable one. Their content helped convince the public and regulators that these businesses were different from existing corporations – that they were startups with innovative technology platforms designed to disrupt established firms by efficiently connecting consumers to independent, empowered gig workers. Those in the media normalized and at times generated this rhetoric and framing, which was then taken up by politicians, amplified by academics, and finally enshrined in laws that legalized the business models of these companies. The positive, uncritical coverage prevailed for years and helped pave the way for a handful of companies that represent a tiny fraction of the economy to have an outsized impact on law, mainstream corporate practices, and the way we think about work. The force that powered the swoon was a relatively new and journalistically problematic trend in media: “tech” reporting.

This chapter presents the sharing economy phenomenon and studies its main characteristics. It argues that it is a diverse phenomenon with diverse normative implications. There is a tendency in legal academia to focus almost exclusively on Airbnb and Uber, and this tendency flattens the complexity of the phenomenon. The chapter maps the phenomenon based on an institutional analysis, focusing on who owns or controls the property or service. It identifies four main institutional categories: peer-to-peer markets that include both for-profit projects and nonprofit enterprises, commercial companies, communal projects, and governmental programs. The distinction among forms of access is important. Each category raises different legal and policy-oriented challenges. Each category also carries different normative value from the perspective of flexibility.

This chapter assumes the owner’s perspective regarding the decision to rent out intimate, privately used possessions, which the chapter names “intimate property”. It first critically analyzes the special legal treatment of intimate property as securing attachment and stability. The home is a central example. The chapter then goes on to describe modern challenges to this legal vision, including the tension between the home and the workplace and the rise of domestic work and home businesses. The access economy further complicates this vision. Airbnb, an online tourist marketplace that allows owners to share their homes for a fee, commercializes and destabilizes the meaning of co-living relationships in the home. The home becomes a site for fleeting, temporal interactions with tourists. Stable, intimate relations become intertwined with the commercial and the casual. The access economy thus creates a new conception of intimate property, functioning as a hybrid. It supports emerging personal markets, where intimacy shapes market practices and market practices shape the parties’ understandings of intimacy. This chapter explains the complexity of this fragmented vision, fleshes out the tension between stability and openness, and discusses the possible legal implications for legal regulation and antidiscrimination laws.