Welcome!
IMHO 1) The purpose of an MLS may be modified to fit "whatever the members want it to be" whether it be an offer of commission/compensation between members, or providing data services to it's membership. ((It's the old-schoolers who stick to just one clearly defined role for their MLS all the while redefining agency, negotiations, and disclosures at the state house.)) 2) Internet didn't kill anything - it changed it. New models which interpret the data and offer services on a different basis are developing, experimenting and growing in some cases. Last time I checked the RELO companies still had a stranglehold on corporate real estate services... the more things change the more they stay the same! 3) there sure are a lot of comments on this topic!
We could focus on the positive aspect of this settlement, however we would not do justice to the real estate consumers - so here it goes: 1) Does this settlement tacitly imply that after 10 years the real estate industry may go back to the old ways? 2) A significant percentage of agents currently tell consumers information that is considered "anti-trust" according to industry training, there is no negative consequence for agents so such training has no teeth. 3) The DOJ has addressed concerns after the fact in many cases. Will the DOJ protect the interests of real estate consumers in the future once a "New Angle" arises within the myriad of real estate industry rules and regulations required to retain MLS membership? 4) This settlement allows certain industry players to get away without any negative consequence in trade for compromise. NAR "makes no admission of wrongdoing" when the fact is that certain players in the RE industry knowingly intended to break anti-trust law. That would be OK, if those implicated offered a simply apology - along with a "Broker Policy Letter" to all the discount brokers stating that they will also be paid the same co-brokerage amount per the MLS as any full-service / full-price broker. Despite this proposed settlement the real estate industry still has sharp teeth.
This Re/Max thing sounds like the Title Company decided to end the "Advertising arrangement" (which in reality may have been based upon an estimated number of Title Referrals) so the disgruntled Re/Max (perhaps) decided to report this arrangement violation to the Feds in exchange for immunity from prosecution under RESPA. Everyone seems to be afraid of RESPA yet most of the big companies either have an affiliated business-arrangement, an advertising/rental agreement, or they own their own title/closing division and charge an additional "fee" if the consumer doesn't utilize these in-house services. What's so damned fair about that? Corey Scholtka Truth in real estate!
