DOJ, NAR agree to settle antitrust lawsuit
Settlement proposal eliminates broker 'opt-out' provision
By Glenn Roberts Jr., Tuesday, May 27, 2008.Bookmarking Sites
A federal antitrust lawsuit, filed against the National Association of Realtors trade group in 2005 following a two-year investigation, has reached a proposed settlement that calls for the adoption of a new online listings policy.
Deborah A. Garza, deputy assistant attorney general for the U.S. Justice Department, today characterized the proposed settlement as "a full success" for the department. "We were able to achieve full relief with respect to the practices we were concerned about," she said.
Meanwhile, Richard F. Gaylord, president for the National Association of Realtors, said in a statement, "This is clearly a win-win for the real estate industry and the consumers we serve," and the association characterized the outcome as "favorable."
At the center of the lawsuit were NAR-adopted policies governing the online sharing and display of property listings, including Virtual Office Web site (VOW) and Internet Listings Display (ILD) policies.
Another set of data-sharing policies for multiple listing services and participants, known as Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policies, were not challenged in the lawsuit and are unaffected by the proposed settlement.
The Justice Department had alleged in its lawsuit that NAR's policies could have the impact of restricting competition and consumer choice in real estate services, and discouraging low-cost services.
Click here to participate in a group discussion about the proposed settlement.
One of the rules challenged by the Justice Department required that multiple listing services permit brokers to selectively withhold property listings from companies that operate VOW-based search sites that feature a collection of property listings from MLS members.
"Many local MLSs adopted NAR's (VOW) policy before NAR suspended its policy during the department's investigation," according to the Justice Department announcement today, and in one market area in Kansas "all brokers withheld their listings from the one VOW in the community, which was then forced to discontinue its popular Web site."
The settlement proposal provides that the display of listing information on a VOW site "does not require separate permission from the participant whose listings will be available on the VOW," but does provide that individual sellers can choose to block information about their home from display on the Internet.
Those MLSs that had adopted policies in violation of the settlement proposal must rescind those rules, and "Under the new policy, brokers participating in a NAR-affiliated MLS will not be permitted to withhold their listings from brokers who serve their customers through virtual office Web sites," DOJ announced.
Another rule challenged by Justice Department officials relates to restrictions in using VOW sites as a source of referral fees from other brokers. The proposed settlement provides that an MLS "may not prohibit, restrict, or impede a participant from referring registrants to any person or from obtaining a fee for such referral."
Also under the proposed settlement, NAR will offer antitrust compliance training programs to instruct local Associations of Realtors about proposed settlement and antitrust laws in general.
Lucien Salvant, spokesman for NAR, noted that NAR paid no monetary penalty and makes no admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement.
"We don't think the DOJ showed any instance in which the VOW policy harmed anyone," he said, adding that the settlement strengthens NAR's position by allowing that all members of MLS "must be actively engaged in the act of real estate buying and selling," which prevents MLS participants from joining an MLS specifically to "scrape" property listings from other members.
NAR officials had stated in November 2007 that the association would engage in settlement talks with Justice Department officials.
The proposed settlement will be published in the Federal Register and is subject to a 60-day comment period and a 30-day review by a judge before it is finalized.
NAR must adopt the modified VOW policy within five business days of the final judgment on the settlement agreement.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.

You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by G Dewald | Union Street Media on May 27, 2008 - 1:33pm.
A question, wouldn't it be better if "real-estate-as-content" aggregators were getting their data directly from the feed so that they would be more likely to attribute a listing to the appropriate agent?
It appears that currently most scraping is done on the public-facing parts of web sites and all the listings attributed to the first site the aggregator scrapes.
Maybe I'm getting something wrong here...
G. Dewald | Union Street Media | USM Blog
Submitted by Bruce Hahn on May 27, 2008 - 4:19pm.
American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance
This is a great victory for American homeowners. This decision will enable technology to deliver the kinds of economies that it has in many other economic sectors. We hope that other real estate institutions will see the writing on the wall and forgo efforts to deny American homeowners unrestricted choice in the selection of real estate services in the future. The efforts to restrict competition by NAR and other real estate institutions have not reflected the views of most real estate brokers and agents and have unfairly sullied their reputation in the minds of consumers. The vast majority of very capable real estate brokers and agents do not fear competition from new business models and do not support restricting them anyway.
Submitted by Corey Scholtka on May 28, 2008 - 12:19am.
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.
Submitted by Joe Hildebrand on May 28, 2008 - 11:19am.
I think it is way too early to determine the true outcome/effect of this settlement as some of the other posts have done.
There is a reason it is for 10 years and my guess is it will take at least 3 to see the true effect and results from this case.
As for being a huge win for consumers, I am not sure I see that let alone the public. The general public has a basic understanding of the MLS and that they want their home sold. I imagine their eyes gloss over once they start reading IDX, VOW, ILD, NAR, DOJ all in one sentence and trying to figure out what it all means. I have yet to read an article that clearly explains the issue with historical perspective and in laymen's terms such that the public can clearly see the benefit.
I have read the article on just about every site that posted one and they all vary a small amount in what the end result is. So please tell me how the public will see it any different when virtually every business columnist around the country sees something (and writes) different about it?