Like a repeat visitor, a bill to tax short-term rental bookings is back in front of the Washington State Legislature — and drawing renewed resistance from vacation rental giant Airbnb.

Senate Bill 5576 would allow counties, cities and towns to impose a tax of up to 4% on short-term rentals used by vacation guests on platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo. The bill failed to advance during the 2025 session.

The aim of the bill — and companion House Bill 1763 — is to address a shortage of funding for housing, especially in cities and towns where short-term rentals have had an impact on the availability of affordable properties for people who live and work in tourist-heavy locales.

“We are absolutely going to pursue the policy again this session to create critical new revenue streams for cities and counties struggling with our housing crisis,” Sen. Liz Lovelett (D-Anacortes), the prime sponsor for the bill, told GeekWire. “This remains a smart approach to ensure that more resources are available to build workforce housing across the state, especially in areas where seasonal tourism drives up demand for vacation homes and reduces the availability of long-term rentals.”

This is the eighth year that Lovelett has sponsored a short-term rental tax proposal. Last session she estimated that the state could use hundreds of thousands, if not a million, new housing units over the next 20 years, and that somewhere near 35,000 units are wrapped up as short-term rentals.

Last year’s bill made it out of the Senate but was not called forward for a vote on the House floor prior to the April 16 cutoff.

San Francisco-based Airbnb pushed back on the legislation last year and is back to do the same this session. The company’s political action committee in Washington, called Airbnb Helps Our State Thrive (HOST) PAC, advocates for residents and communities who rely on home sharing and would be negatively impacted by a new tax. A companion website urges Washingtonians to “say no to the vacation tax.”

“SB5576 and HB1763 will make it more expensive for Washington families to travel within the state, while failing to meaningfully address local housing affordability challenges,” Airbnb Public Policy Manager Jordan Mitchell said in a statement to GeekWire. “The proposals target residents who share their homes to earn supplemental income, giving large hotel chains the upper hand.”

Mitchell said Airbnb supports efforts to improve housing affordability in Washington state, but the tax legislation misses the mark and data-backed policies are needed to bolster affordable housing supply. He referenced Senate Bill 6026, which aims to allow and encourage residential development in commercial and mixed-use zones.

Vrbo, owned by Seattle-based travel giant Expedia Group, views the bill as a better alternative than an outright ban on short-term rentals.

“We support SB 5576 and see the measure as a helpful affordable housing tool and an important pressure release valve for communities who might otherwise pursue more punitive and harmful measures such as an outright ban on the activity,” Richard de Sam Lazaro, Expedia Group’s head of government affairs for North America, said in a statement to GeekWire.

Some cities across Washington have already enacted their own restrictions or regulations. The Seattle City Council approved taxes back in 2017 and the city requires licensing for hosts to operate. In other states, far harsher restrictions have been implemented, including an outright ban on short-term rentals in New York City. 

Airbnb says its Washington hosts play an important role in strengthening the state’s tourism economy.

In 2024, short-term rentals in Washington helped generate approximately $4.7 billion in economic activity for the state and supported over 35,000 local jobs, according to a study from The Association of Washington Businesses and local economic consultant CAI.

Short-term rentals and visitor spending contributed more than $300 million in state and local fiscal revenues in Washington in 2024, according to the report.

This story originally appeared on Real Estate News.

The debate over private listings and pre-marketing in Washington state could soon reach a turning point if a bill requiring the public marketing of residential properties advances in the state legislature.

Washington Realtors is backing SB6091, a new draft bill aimed at curbing exclusive home marketing practices — while stopping short of mandating MLS participation. The trade group informed members of the effort on Jan. 9 in preparation for the start of Washington’s short legislative session this week. The organization shared the draft bill with Real Estate News and other media outlets on Jan. 12; Inman was first to report on the initiative. 

‘As consumer-friendly’ as possible

Ryan Beckett, Washington Realtors’ 2026 president, said the measure is designed to prioritize consumers rather than settle industry disputes over platforms or listing strategies. The draft bill would prohibit real estate brokers from marketing residential properties to a limited or exclusive group of buyers or brokers unless the property is also marketed publicly at the same time.

“The ultimate goal is being as consumer-friendly as humanly possible for anybody trying to buy or sell real property,” Beckett said of the effort. “When we keep having these conversations about private listing networks, we recognize that it really is at odds with that concept.”

Under the bill, brokers would still be free to use private listing networks or other selective marketing strategies — but only if the listing is also made available publicly “in some way, shape or form,” Beckett explained. 

“We’re not telling anybody they can’t use a private listing network, or that they can’t market their property the way they want to,” he said. “But if you do go forward with that particular strategy, you also have to make it available publicly.”

MLS entry not required: ‘We’re not giving parameters’ 

Unlike the National Association of Realtors’ Clear Cooperation Policy, the bill does not tie compliance to MLS rules or require brokers to include their listings in the MLS. Beckett emphasized that the language in the bill is intentionally platform-neutral. 

“Publicly marketing could be as simple as putting it on your website,” he said. “We’re not telling you you have to have it in the MLS. We’re not giving parameters other than saying it does need to be publicly available to the community.”

That flexibility means the bill would be less restrictive than Zillow’s listing access standards, which require broad public distribution of listings, or Northwest MLS’s policies prohibiting pre-marketing of listings and office exclusives. Those rules have put the two Washington state-based organizations at odds with brokerages in the “seller choice” camp — particularly Compass, which is suing both Zillow and NWMLS over their private listing policies.

A state effort with no industry partnerships involved  

Washington isn’t the first state to attempt to codify residential listing access in state law. 

Just last month, the Wisconsin legislature passed a bill requiring residential properties to be marketed “on one or more Internet platforms or websites accessible to the general public” within one business day of a signed listing agreement, unless the seller completes and signs a state-mandated disclosure form. The law is set to go into effect in January 2027.

A similar bill was introduced in Illinois last year — and in that case, Zillow was a key partner in the effort. But in Washington, Beckett said his organization deliberately avoided framing the bill as a response to specific companies or industry rivalries. 

“Zillow and Compass are both members of our organization,” he said. “We hate getting involved where members are being pitted against one another. We tried very, very hard to stay out of that completely.”

Transparency, consumer awareness key

Rather than taking a position on the existing private listings debate, Beckett said Washington Realtors is simply focused on transparency and access, and avoiding the “potential for problems,” such as the Fair Housing concerns frequently cited by private listing opponents.

“For us, that’s the big key — just making sure there’s enough transparency out there that consumers in the market are aware of what’s available,” Beckett said.

The legislation does include limited carve-outs for sellers with health, safety or confidentiality concerns, however, including in situations where medical issues would require limiting the number of people entering a home. Beckett said some of those exceptions already exist in state law, with others clarified in the new bill.

The bill has bipartisan support in both legislative chambers: In the Senate, sponsors include Sens. Marco Liias (D-21), Emily Alvarado (D-34), Chris Gildon (R-25), John Braun (R-20) and Jessica Bateman (D-22); in the House, the bill is sponsored by Reps. Strom Peterson (D-21) and April Connors (R-8), Washington Realtors told Real Estate News.

A bill introduced in the Washington state Legislature would ban employers from requiring or pressuring workers to be microchipped, a practice lawmakers want to prohibit before it ever becomes an issue.

House Bill 2303 was prefiled this week by Reps. Brianna Thomas (D-34) and Lisa Parshley (D-22).

The bill would prohibit employers from requiring, requesting or coercing employees to have microchips implanted in their bodies as a condition of employment, and would bar the use of subcutaneous tracking or identification technology for workplace management or surveillance.

It aims to protect worker privacy and bodily autonomy by establishing strict penalties for violations, including civil penalties starting at $10,000 and the right for aggrieved workers to sue for damages and injunctive relief.

While there’s no known instance of an employer seeking such action, Thomas told GeekWire the bill is a preemptive move.

“We are getting out ahead of the problem because the practice of requiring these chips is too dangerous to wait for it to show up in Washington,” she said Thursday via email. “An employee with a microchip stops being an employee — they are essentially being dehumanized into corporate equipment.”

The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs reported that internationally, more than 50,000 people have elected to receive microchip implants to serve as their swipe keys, credit cards, and more. The organization noted that the technology is especially popular in Sweden, where chip implants are more widely accepted for gym access, e-tickets on transit systems, and to store emergency contact information.

HB 2303 would add a new section to Chapter 49.44 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), titled “Violations — Prohibited Practices.” The chapter serves as a catch-all for labor regulations that define and prohibit specific unfair or illegal activities by employers, employees, and labor representatives.

The legislation is similar to laws passed in Arkansas, California, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, Indiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

“Workers cannot legitimately consent to a program because of the power dynamic between them and the employer,” Thomas said. “Implanted chips have no place in a work environment.”

Nevada is “arguably the most restrictive” on microchip implants and permanent identification markers, according to the Carnegie Council. Its law prohibits people from voluntarily electing to receive such markers in Nevada.

Thomas said HB 2303 does not go as far as Nevada’s restrictions, noting that workers would still be free to make their own choices outside the workplace.

Thomas said she believes companies will eventually pitch the technology to their employees by telling them it’s more convenient and easier — you don’t have to worry about forgetting your work access badge, etc.

“Many times convenience causes people to view things too narrowly and they don’t see the big picture,” she said. “The power dynamic between an employer and an employee makes true, uncoerced consent impossible. This is about making sure workers not only have the option but also consider all the factors when these programs are presented to them.”

The Carnegie Council also reported on the privacy, data security, and health safety concerns that microchips present, including from technologists who worry about IoT vulnerabilities in sensors and network architecture that could be exploited by hackers.

While the Washington proposal targets simple Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, a more sophisticated wave of “brain-computer interfaces” (BCIs) is rapidly moving toward the mainstream.

Elon Musk wants to ramp up production of his Neuralink brain‑computer interface chips in 2026. He envisions the technology helping people with neurological conditions while eventually enabling humans to interact directly with computers. The company plans to make the surgical implantation process nearly fully automated to scale the procedure.

Washington’s HB 2303 is scheduled for a public hearing Jan. 14 in the House Committee on Labor & Workplace Standards.