Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

Manhattan Airbnb: guest says host's damage-claim photos were manipulated or AI-generated, Airbnb first ordered payment then refunded her

The Guardian reported on 2 August 2025 that a London-based academic who rented a Manhattan apartment through Airbnb in 2025 was accused by the host of more than 12,000 pounds of damage, supported by photos including a cracked coffee table. She says differences between two photos of the table show they were digitally manipulated or AI-generated. Airbnb first told her to reimburse 5,314 pounds after reviewing the photos, then, five days after Guardian Money asked about the case, accepted her appeal, credited 500 pounds and, after she refused an 854-pound offer, refunded her booking cost of 4,269 pounds, and the host's negative review of her was taken down. Airbnb apologised. Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images he submitted and warned him. The host did not respond to the Guardian. No source establishes that AI was used.

AI system
Unidentified image tool (suspected)
Occurred
2025
Reported
2 August 2025
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Other Material HarmReputational Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Everyday life · Finance
Evidence
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts
5 claims: 5 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: None identified (guest suspects the host's damage-claim photos were digitally manipulated or AI-generated; no tool or forensic finding is reported)

Reported harm

The Guardian reports Airbnb initially told the guest to reimburse the host 5,314 pounds on the strength of the host's photos and the host placed a negative review on her profile; Airbnb later refunded her booking cost in full and the review was taken down.

What remains unknown

  • Whether the host's photos were altered, and by what tool, is unknown: no forensic finding, host statement or Airbnb finding on AI is reported.
  • Airbnb's own review of the photos is described only as a 'careful review'. No source says Airbnb used an AI system to assess them.
  • The stay dates, the day of the damage claim and the outcome date are not stated beyond 'earlier this year' and the Guardian's 2 August 2025 date.
  • Whether the guest paid any part of the reimbursement before the appeal succeeded is not stated.
  • The US outlets give the claim as about 16,000 dollars (Fox Business) and the Guardian as more than 12,000 pounds. The inspected sources do not itemise the claim.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: suspected. The guest says differences between two photos of one table lead her to believe they were manipulated or AI-generated. Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images. The host did not respond, and no source shows an AI tool was used. Fox Business and the New York Post headlines state AI use more strongly than the Guardian body supports.

5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The host told Airbnb the guest had caused more than 12,000 pounds of damage, submitted pictures including an apparently cracked coffee table, and Airbnb initially told the guest after reviewing the photos that she must reimburse 5,314 pounds.

Causal attribution. The Guardian relays the guest's account of the host's claim and Airbnb's first decision. Airbnb's ruling and the photos were not inspected. New York Post and Fox Business rewrite this account.

  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    the host told Airbnb that she had caused more than £12,000 worth of damage, and submitted pictures of an apparently cracked coffee table as part of his case.
  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Airbnb initially told her “after careful review of the photos”, she would have to reimburse the host a total of £5,314. She appealed against the decision.
Reported The Guardian reports that a close examination of two pictures of the coffee table appears to show differences in the damage, leading the guest to believe they were digitally manipulated or generated by AI. The host did not respond to the Guardian.

Causal attribution. Guest's belief and the Guardian's description of her comparison. The photos were not inspected and no forensic finding was reported. Whether an AI tool was used is not established.

  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    A close examination of two pictures of the coffee table appears to show differences in the damage, leading the woman to believe they were digitally manipulated or generated by AI.
  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    He did not respond to a request for comment.
Reported Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images he submitted, warned him for violating its terms and said he would be removed if there was another similar report.

Causal attribution. Airbnb statements to the Guardian and to Fox Business. Airbnb did not state a finding that the images were AI-generated. The company's review of the photos is described only as 'careful review' with no mention of AI tools.

  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Airbnb said he had been warned for violating its terms and told he would be removed if there was another similar report. The company told him that it could not verify the images he submitted as part of his complaint.
  • foxbusiness.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    We have taken action with the host, and we are reviewing the original handling of this case.
Reported After Guardian Money asked Airbnb about the case, Airbnb accepted the appeal, credited 500 pounds, then refunded the full booking cost of 4,269 pounds after the guest refused a partial offer, the host's negative review on her profile was taken down (the Guardian does not say by whom), and Airbnb apologised.

Causal attribution. The Guardian relays the guest's account and Airbnb's statements. The refund and review removal were not documented by Airbnb records seen here.

  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Five days after Guardian Money raised questions about the case with Airbnb, the woman was told it had accepted her appeal and credited her account with £500.
  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    the company offered an £854 refund – a fifth of the cost of her booking. She refused to accept this
  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    was refunded the full cost (£4,269) of her booking, and a negative review that the host had placed on her profile was taken down.
  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Airbnb apologised and said there would be a review into how her case was handled.
Reported Airbnb said the guest's experience fell below its usual standards and that she would not be charged for the reported damage.

Causal attribution. Airbnb's own statement to Fox Business.

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: United Kingdom. Court countries: Unknown.

The Guardian places the apartment in Manhattan, New York, and describes the guest as London-based. Airbnb's location and the Guardian's publication are not used.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: The Guardian report and two rewrites were read in full. The host and guest are not named and the apartment address is not given. The AI element rests on the guest's belief and Airbnb's statement that it could not verify the images. Claims stay at reported status.

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One guest reported subjected to the damage claim. Other Airbnb customers who might face similar claims are not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Manhattan Airbnb: guest says host's damage-claim photos were manipulated or AI-generated, Airbnb first ordered payment then refunded her. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-us-manhattan-airbnb-damage-claim-photos-disputed-as-manipulated-guest-refunded

BibTeX

@misc{2025_us_manhattan_airbnb_damage_claim_photos_disputed_as_manipulated_guest_refunded,
  title = {Manhattan Airbnb: guest says host's damage-claim photos were manipulated or AI-generated, Airbnb first ordered payment then refunded her},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-us-manhattan-airbnb-damage-claim-photos-disputed-as-manipulated-guest-refunded}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified image tool

Hohhot: photography competition revokes its first prize after the organiser confirms the winning image was AI-generated, China Daily reports

China Daily reported on 15 July 2026 that the first prize in a local photography competition in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, had been revoked after the image was found to be AI-generated. Online users had pointed to garbled characters on the workers' vests, unnatural sunlight and matching faces in the winning photo of three sanitation workers. After an investigation, the city's federation of literary and art circles, one of the organisers, confirmed in a notice on Tuesday 14 July that the photo had been created using AI, cancelled its award and barred the work from competitions, evaluations, exhibitions and official archives. The competition was suspended for rectification; the notice said those responsible would be dealt with under the relevant rules and that the case exposed lax vetting and imprecise judging criteria. The entrant is not named, and who generated the image is not stated.

Medium Unidentified facial recognition system

US: FTC says Rite Aid's facial recognition falsely matched shoppers to a watchlist, leading staff to search an 11-year-old girl and call police on a woman

In a complaint filed in federal court in Pennsylvania on 19 December 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission alleged that the pharmacy chain Rite Aid used facial recognition in its stores to match customers against a database of people it suspected of shoplifting or other wrongdoing, and that staff acted on the match alerts by following, searching, ejecting and publicly accusing customers and by calling the police. The FTC says many alerts were false positives: employees recorded thousands of false-positive alerts between December 2019 and July 2020, staff stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on a false match, and employees called the police on a Black woman matched to an image of a white woman with blonde hair. Rite Aid agreed to a proposed order barring it from using facial recognition in retail stores for five years, without admitting or denying the allegations.

Low Unidentified image tool (suspected)

Nova Scotia woman says duct cleaners showed her an "after" photo of work she found undone; examiners for Global News found an AI watermark on it

A woman in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, told Global News that a duct-cleaning crew she booked through a Facebook Marketplace advert came to her home on 9 October 2026, showed her a phone photo of a dirty furnace motor, raised the price to $300 and then showed her a photo of a motor that looked almost new as proof the job was done. When she checked after the crew left, she says, the motor was still dirty. An AI researcher at the University at Buffalo and two students, examining the photos for Global News, found a Google SynthID watermark on the clean-motor photo; the researcher said the AI detector Sightengine gave it a 99 per cent AI score and called the result their strongest evidence that the image may come from AI. She says the company denied wrongdoing and refunded her only after repeated complaints; Halifax police told her it was a civil matter.

Low Meta Muse agent

Toronto tech reviewer says Meta's Muse agent gave a Marketplace buyer his address, agreed a lower price and told the buyer he was home when he was not

Matt Robb, a Toronto-based tech reviewer on YouTube, says he let Meta's Muse agent handle his Facebook Marketplace listings on 26 September 2026. Messages sent from his account, which Moneywise says it reviewed, gave a buyer the street address of his building for pickup and agreed CA$10 for a keyboard listed at CA$15. Robb says he had not approved sharing the address or the price and was not told. According to a recap Muse later sent him, the buyer arrived around 9:15 p.m., Muse's auto-reply told him 'Yep I'm here!' although nobody came down, and he left at 9:38 p.m.; Muse then sent an apology in Robb's voice. Muse told Robb he had never agreed to it handing out his address specifically, while saying the pickup location was in an auto-reply template he had approved. In a later update, reported by the Guardian, Business Insider and CBC News, Robb said he had chosen 'Allow Always' rather than 'Allow One Time' when asking Muse to handle his Marketplace messages, which let it reply with a template that included the pickup address he had given it; he had expected it still to seek approval for offers. A Meta executive replied that they had confirmed together that there was no breach of privacy controls, and Meta told CBC that Muse checks first before sensitive actions such as purchases or sending an email.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents