SF startup is testing robots in Airbnbs, and trashing them, lawsuit claims

https://sfstandard.com/2026/05/28/sf-startup-secretly-testing-robots-airbnbs-trashing-lawsuit-claims/

by drewda • 2 months ago

272 147 2 months ago

so, so close to having people legitimately and earnestly start saying "we don't serve their kind here" while gesturing to humanoid robots

fidotron• 2 months ago

Human only "safe spaces" will be a thing. Where they draw the line will be the question.

chatmasta3• 2 months ago

These bots are going to arrive suddenly and in huge volume. I’m not sure when it will happen, but when it does, it will be extremely fast. The software is basically ready, and the hardware isn’t too far off. The processing latency will be problematic but with local inference improving quickly, this will all come together into the perfect storm for the arrival of the bot army. I don’t think any of us are prepared for it.

toss1• 2 months ago

If the morally bankrupt SV techs aren't careful, the line will be "Shoot the damn things on sight", and then there will be a bounty on them.

elzbardico4• 2 months ago

The billionaires will still be mostly served by humans, probably former SWEs as the oligarchs will find all this situation amusingly entertaining.

Of course, the're will be a few robot dogs patrolling the fences and hidden behind closets on the rare occasions the servants decide to rebel.

Animats2• 2 months ago

Southwest Airlines just banned humanoid robots on their flights.[1]

[1] https://aeronauticsmagazine.com/news/no-robots-allowed-south...

htrp• 2 months ago

Donovan alleges that employees of the Bot Company(opens in new tab) rented his home “under false pretenses” to conduct prototype testing on robots they’re training to do household chores.
A refrigerator shelf was cracked, and a broken glass or dish had been left in the garbage disposal. A wooden nightstand drawer was chipped. Cups and plates were in the wrong places. It looked like the furniture had been moved around.

Not sure which one is worse, the fact that the bot can't actually do household chore or the fact that the humans can't clean it up.

hn_throwaway_99• 2 months ago

It's exactly this ethos, the "move fast and break things", and oh, we don't give a fuck about who/what we damage in the process - careless people indeed.

I am someone who came of age during an incredibly hopeful time about how technology could be a force for good. The silicon valley ethos at present is totally morally bankrupt and rotten to the core.

tclancy3• 2 months ago

Same. Growing up Gen X, I always thought robots being used for evil would be cool dystopian dictatorships that would try to grind me under its boot but I would resist. Instead it’s just twerps who are so terminally online they can’t fathom other people seem to have feelings.

Now I’m getting even angrier imagining the email that went around internally on how to spin this and why it was a short term loss but will be for the long term good. Of trying to kill off the idea of cleaning people and then jacking up rates.

ianm218• 2 months ago

It sounds like they cost a couple hundred dollars in damages I’m not sure it damns a whole generation

kortilla• 2 months ago

Cups and plates in the wrong places, the horror!! This generation is cooked. /s

I wonder why that was on the same level of complaints about broken things.

RobotToaster3• 2 months ago

Moving fast and breaking things is fine, as long as you fix them and make things right.

If you break a production server you don't just leave it broken...

I'm assuming these companies have VC cash, so not just paying for repairs and risking negative publicity seems extremely foolish.

staplers• 2 months ago

A good doc on this subject: https://machines.cargo.site/

JsonDemWitOster• 2 months ago

Move fast and break things is an ethos borne out of the assumption that fixing things is relatively cheap. Hence it made sense in software where experimentation is dirt cheap. But even then, the idea is quite a stretch: ask anyone who worked in a startup who had to sell to even just SMEs, not to mention big conglomerates. The idea hits a hard wall and starts to crack when the business hits a customer who can't fix things for cheap. Even Zuck, father and posterboy of the idea, had to eventually pivot messaging to "Move fast with stable infra".

And the more "software eats the world", the less this paradigm is gonna be a feasible market strategy. I've harbored these thoughts from way back and hence I was (and continue to be) skeptical of unregulated start-ups/new tech ideas who interface with the real world: Hyperloop, Tesla self-driving, and Theranos come to mind. An interesting case study in my view is _Github_ who in theory, having software engineers for customers, should be pretty well-insulated from the expensive repair costs of the real world. And yet we'd all agree they need a GINORMOUS dose of that sweet sweet "stable infra".

nxobject• 2 months ago

“Sorry :( Did my best!” said a pithy message the group left on a whiteboard on his scuffed-up dining table.

Well, no wonder people don't have faith in the people selling AI.

rdtsc• 2 months ago

Love that part. It really illustrates how incompetent these people are. That’s why the need for robots, they are projecting their incompetence on other people!

Also, if this is the best they can do and left such a mess, don’t let them operate robots or any machines! Teach them to use a mop and then maybe upgrade them to a vacuum, and if they pass, let them use a sink garbage disposal under adult supervision.

Scroll_Swe• 2 months ago

I mean I have done this but I'm probably ADHD & Autistic

conartist6• 2 months ago

Tech now believes it should behave amorally

It reaches for people without morals, and instructs them to pursue profit without regard for morality.

I'm very, very, very glad to hear that these people are getting sued.

They should expect to feel a hostile world if they put their every effort into creating a hostile world

randycupertino• 2 months ago

The irony is the company is trying to make robots to help clean airbnbs for renter turnovers. Instead they are messing up airbnbs and making them harder to clean before turnovers.

est31• 2 months ago

It's fine to make mistakes, that's how you learn. The problem here was that they didn't announce to the host that they are doing a test of their in-development equipment.

So the host wasn't able to add the additional risk and hassle to the price, which in this instance would have been a quite legitimate ask as the robot damaged their revenue generating property.

It's very ironic that Airbnb itself has done similar practices in the past where it ignored hospitality regulations to establish their business model, i.e. not asking for permission but for forgiveness.

The Airbnb style response would be to gig-ify this model where you ask an independent contractor to buy the test robot, rent the Airbnb, and test it out instead of you doing it yourself. Then the contractor bears the risk of damages to the property.

gbgarbeb• 2 months ago

$13,000 in damage you say? Where have I heard that number before... [1]

Keep it real, Kyle. It doesn't seem like you learned anything from the failure of your last company.

[1] https://weartv.com/news/local/report-pensacola-woman-charged...

TZubiri2• 2 months ago

$12,383.50

Which is below the CA 12,500$ limit for small claims court.

Haven't checked whether the case was brought to small claims, but that'd be my guess.

fjni• 2 months ago

Founded by alums of Tesla and the autonomous vehicle company Cruise, the San Francisco startup has received hundreds of millions in venture capital funding and is valued at $2 billion

Stop outsourcing the cost of your vision to the rest of society. Especially when it’s peanuts to you and meaningful to, in this case, the host of what they call an apartment and you seem to think is a test course.

ssl-32• 2 months ago

I mean, it's good that they're testing things in different places. Environments vary.

But hundreds of millions sounds like enough money to get some industrial or dead commercial space (even in/around SF) and outfit it to be like an apartment. Or six different ones, and six others two weeks from now, and two weeks after that. The cost of the space and the carpenters/painters/drywallers/handymen/managers/whatevers would seem to be something of such relative insignificance that it doesn't even show up on the budgetary radar.

JumpCrisscross6• 2 months ago

They want realistic randomness in the apartment layouts. This is a quick, effective way to get that. If they were honest with the hosts, it wouldn’t even be a bad idea.

jmward01• 2 months ago

Or, just throwing this out there, secretly list their own places and have robots clean up after the guests to evaluate -real places- that have -actually been used-. The key here though is that the places need to be theirs (or at least be a clear contract with the actual owner with full consent and understanding).

DrewADesign2• 2 months ago

Nobody in this startup landscape gives a shit about anybody or anything that isn’t, at that very moment, contributing to their product development, market share, or raising capital. Even then, they only give a shit if they can’t avoid it and still get what they want. The second they are no longer useful, they’re thrown out like a bag of moldy tangerines. Morally bankrupt “leaders” employing people too inexperienced to know better or too disempowered to change anything.

marcus_holmes• 2 months ago

This is the product of "rugged individualism" so prized of Reagan/Thatcher politics. Thatcher meant exactly this when she said "there's no such thing as society".

I've got mine, you can all go f*ck yourselves.

We need to get back to a place where other people matter, where the implicit social contract is honoured by everyone, and there are consequences for breaking it.

elzbardico4• 2 months ago

To be frank, nowadays nobody even cares about product fit, if it really works. What matters is creating a narrative compelling enough first to raise capital, then use this capital to create a narrative for a profitable exit. The product itself is secondary.

prawn• 2 months ago

There'd be loads of people with rough houses they're about to renovate who'd take payment to allow you to test a robot.

atherton94027• 2 months ago

tbqh the airbnb owners are also outsourcing the externalities of short term rentals to make a quick buck. It's outsourcing all the way down

ElProlactin3• 2 months ago

Two wrongs don't make a right.

ElProlactin3• 2 months ago

Stop outsourcing the cost of your vision to the rest of society.

They won't because that's a fundamental principle of the model they believe in.

vrganj• 2 months ago

Founded by alums of Tesla

Learned from the best of them, I see.

Modern tech culture is a blight on society.

Barbing2• 2 months ago

Well said. Unfortunate anyone would necessitate the Airbnbanhammer, and the lawsuits, but could be important tools here.

Scamming homeowners out of relative peanuts is super cringe. Everyone looks bad:

- Employees - Management - Investors - Previous companies listed

& “move fast & be antisocial” Bot Co. too. Photograph/video walkthrough the rental beforehand, safeguard antiques/uniques, professionally restore to 100%, nobody ever has to know. Or call host, drop cash.

Make people whole - this is so much easier than your robots, guys.

rsynnott2• 2 months ago

Founded by alums of Tesla

That tracks.

TZubiri2• 2 months ago

Can any lawyer clear this up for me?

If the company ends up having no commercial success and the lawsuits for damages rack up, can they just close the company file for bankruptcy and face no consequences? Or is there some civil or criminal risk to this behaviour?

JumpCrisscross6• 2 months ago

Did an individual or the company rent the Airbnb?

ChoGGi2• 2 months ago

From the article it sounds like an individual did.

qiqitori• 2 months ago

Hmm? Airbnb isn't on the hook?

jfengel• 2 months ago

Officers of the company can be at risk under certain very poorly defined circumstances. Basically, you have to prove that they personally were at fault and were just using the company as a legal cover for their misdeeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

If this were happening in the real world, they would have to personally back some of the corporate debts before banks would lend them money. But this is Silicon Valley, where banks and VCs just give away money to their buddies.

Borealid2• 2 months ago

As a slight hint, one of the more common types of corporation is an "LLC". LLC stands for Limited Liability Company.

If the company's owners had unlimited liability for problems the company caused, that wouldn't be much of an LLC, would it? The primary purpose of an LLC is to make it so that the owners (often the founders) cannot personally be held responsible for debts the company incurs, even debts incurred through their instructions.

This also includes debts caused by punishment for the company breaking civil contracts, but doesn't make individuals who use the company to break the law immune to criminal charges. But the standard of evidence for prosecuting that type of malfeasance is pretty high...

JumpCrisscross6• 2 months ago

primary purpose of an LLC is to make it so that the owners (often the founders) cannot personally be held responsible for debts the company incurs

It’s more so investors who aren’t involved in day-to-day decision making can invest without worrying that the founders will create liability for them.

gamblor9566• 2 months ago

LLCs are the limited liability form also most easily subject to veil-piercing (meaning, the courts ignore the limited liability shield to go after the assets of the owners) as most LLCs fail to properly maintain all the technical minutae necessary to actually keep the liability shield in place.

Insufficient capitalization is the #1 reason for piercing the veil (and also works well against corporations). This involves not putting enough investment into a company to pay the foreseeable debts it would incur from its activities. This means: if your LLC incurs debts knowing it lacks the ability to pay them off, the courts can pierce the LLC and go after you.

gnopgnip• 2 months ago

Usually you just hear about people suing the company, they are easier to collect from. Often they have insurance that will pay out a claim that is faster to pursue than a lawsuit. And if the damages are really large a single employee could go bankrupt. Also because the company is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees in the scope of their duties.

But anyone that personally causes damage through negligence or intentional acts can be sued personally as well. If the employer is bankrupt the employees involved would be the only ones pursued. And these damages are relatively small individually, bankruptcy is not an issue.

Also there are some exceptions to the limited liability for company owners or directors like for illegal activity and fraud.

ElProlactin3• 2 months ago

In a case like this, it would be typical for all possible defendants to be named.

Since the Airbnb bookings were ostensibly made by individuals, most attorneys would also name those individuals (in addition to the company if the company was named).

Having your founders/management/employees rent houses via Airbnb is a really bad strategy for limiting your liability using a company.

bluGill2• 2 months ago

Lawsuit results get priority in bankruptcy court and so are still likely to pay out. The exact order varies by country, type of bankruptcy, and I'm not a lawyer. in general when you are bankrupt there is money just not enough and the courts decide who gets it. That money often exists after selling everything (desks, computers, chairs...) even if there is none now. The courts then decide who gets it, court fees, bankruptcy lawyer fees (if reasonable), banks, then the owners. Often the banks will take the company as a whole and put in new management if the business is otherwise good (think plumbers where the business is likely good but they can fail for bad management, tech companies like this they may give up on)

JumpCrisscross6• 2 months ago

The only way to stop this is for charges to be brought against the employees who made the bookings under false pretenses.

bluefirebrand2• 2 months ago

Why the employees? Do you think they were operating without direction from their managers?

If we want to put a stop to this sort of behavior from businesses we can't be punishing employees for this behavior, we have to run it up the chain.

kibwen2• 2 months ago

You are, in fact, allowed to hate both the player and the game. It is long established that "just following orders" is not a defense.

jojobas• 2 months ago

What, superior orders? Of course we need to punish both.

blindriver• 2 months ago

Why should this be criminal and not civil?

themafia• 2 months ago

They intended to defraud this home owner engaged under contract for their own profit. This wasn't unforeseeable or accidental damage nor due to a misunderstanding on their part.

It's also not a dichotomy. It can be both criminal and civil. Victims always have the right to seek compensation in parallel with criminal punishment.

pjc503• 2 months ago

It's probably easier to handle as civil negligence. Criminal damage has an intent component. Of course it would hinge on discovery - as soon as you find an email to the effect of "we know this will cause damage, let's test it on someone else's house", that counts as intent.

deckar012• 2 months ago

He looked through a window and saw black cables taped to the walls. A man was typing on a laptop sitting next to what appeared to be a robot.

This sounds a lot like criminal invasion of privacy.

Edit: What are you downvoting? You can’t secretly watch Airbnb guests through a window you rented to them for the same reason you can’t put spy cameras in their bathroom.

Psillisp• 2 months ago

Sounds like looking though a window.

JumpCrisscross6• 2 months ago

You can’t secretly watch Airbnb guests through a window

Systematically? No. Casually? Of course you can. Why wouldn’t you be allowed to?

These aren’t corporate landlords, after all.

deckar012• 2 months ago

The “Peeping Tom” Laws Penal Code 647(j) explicitly states it is not a defense to this charge that the defendant is a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant, employer, employee, or business partner or associate of the victim.

https://kelmanskylaw.com/crimes/peeping-tom-law-pc-647j-ca/

866-RON-0-FEZ• 2 months ago

Did the host leave them fresh-baked cookies and an open invitation to "hang out"?

nickvec• 2 months ago

Pretty disgusting behavior. Total lack of respect for others property. The individuals should be named and shamed for participating rather than putting it under the umbrella of the Bot Company.

iknowstuff2• 2 months ago

The fact that this made it to the news cycle is indicative enough of the airbnb owner smelling money once they found out a robotics company is involved, regardless of the extent of damage/wear

add-sub-mul-div• 2 months ago

This kind of simping is surely indicative of something.

rsynnott2• 2 months ago

Eh? This sort of corporate misbehaviour would obviously make the news; it’s both scummy and just bizarre. That makes for good news.

iknowstuff2• 2 months ago

How does it make it to a reporter?

solfox2• 2 months ago

Knowing the cost of home ownership, it’s not unlikely to imagine the reported damages are well within what he’s asking. Given that repair work, filing paper with the courts, etc is a major PITA, if this guy was just looking for a payout you’d think he’d ask for a lot more.

solfox2• 2 months ago

Doubtful these clowns even have commercial insurance for these rentals. What a deceitful and dangerous way to build a business - to save (what?) a few thousand per rental?

jmyeet• 2 months ago

This is just the most perfect Silicon Valley microcosm.

How many startups work is they simply break the law. The gamble is that you can get big enough fast enough that you can then lobby for a change in the law before governments catch up. Uber and Airbnb are like the posterchildren for this. Taxi services are regulated. You can't run an illegal hotel in a residential area. Simple.

So what we have here is another company who doesn't want to make a test kitchen or house. No, that's too expensive. So they'll instead use another startup to effectively steal a lab. It's layers upon layers of illegality, basically.

So if this succeeds and this company creates waves of domestic robots, we can then start to imagine what the next layer is. Will somebody rent an Airbnb with domestic robots so it can then sublet those robots to somebody else or use them for tasks they weren't designed for?

thfuran• 2 months ago

If it can clean a kitchen, it can cook meth. Probably.

maxbond3• 2 months ago

"Move fast and break other people's things."

jollyllama• 2 months ago

It's an interesting approach to the fact that navigation in human spaces is very difficult to generalize, which is probably the main reason that robotics has lagged, say drones.

mvdtnz• 2 months ago

This is not Donovan's "home", as the article states. It's his house and rental business. And he was snooping on his guests when he was taking the rubbish bins out and happened to notice cables and people typing on laptops inside the house - which I'm sure is an explicit violation of Airbnb policies.

input_sh• 2 months ago

Hosts are allowed to have exterior security cameras and recording devices, and are required to make sure their location is disclosed in the listing’s description (ex: “I have a camera in my front yard,” “I have a camera over my patio,” “I have a camera over my pool” or “I have a doorbell camera monitoring my front door and the hallway of my apartment building.”)

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/3061

weird-eye-issue• 2 months ago

How could seeing people in a house from a public area possibly be an explicit violation of policies?

ChoGGi2• 2 months ago

They turned off his security cameras so he went to take a look. At least that's the impression I got.

I'm a little surprised he didn't knock and ask to go in.

andy_ppp• 2 months ago

Move fast and break other people’s things?

syntaxing• 2 months ago

Moral issues aside, this is a pretty clever way to get a wide variety of training data

DonHopkins2• 2 months ago

That guy definitely fucks that robot, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7sd_yhc8IY

Yeah.

gamblor9566• 2 months ago

For the record, this is another YCombinator startup...

At some point does morality ever enter the equation, or does YC deliberately go out of its way to select people with utter disregard for the laws or rights of other people?

Bluescreenbuddy• 2 months ago

Good. Fuck AirBNBs

akabul0us• 2 months ago

"Won't somebody think of the poor San Francisco AirBnB owners who spy on their renters through Ring cameras??" Everyone in this story is a complete piece of shit. Zero sympathy for any of them.

anordin95• 2 months ago

The CEO of this startup was also the CEO of Cruise during the scandal in which Cruise hit a pedestrian, lied and heavily misrepresented evidence to CA investigators. Ethically jarring upgraded to just ethically dubious?

SF startup is testing robots in Airbnbs, and trashing them, lawsuit claims

Related Stories