Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> Real Estate, Real Competition & The Law
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Real Estate & Property Law
: Real Estate, Real Competition & The LawFederal Appellate Court: Realcomp's Website Policy Unreasonably Restrained Competition
By Michael Erdman
What seems like ages ago, an FTC Administrative Law Judge entered an initial decision in favor of Realcomp. The FTC later vacated and reversed the ALJ's decision, and Realcomp asked the 6th Circuit to weigh in. Last week the court denied Realcomp's petition for review.
Realcomp's Website Policy "prohibited information about exclusive agency and other nontraditional listings on Realcomp's MLS from being distributed to public real-estate advertising websites through its MLS feeds." Such public sites include IDX participant websites and Realtor.com.
Among other things, the panel concentrated on "the effect of Realcomp's restriction on consumer choice, specifically, the reduction in competitive brokerage options available to home sellers." It concluded that the Website Policy had both potential and actual adverse effects on competition, noting the Website Policy "created barriers to the dissemination of discount listings to public websites." The court also highlighted Realcomp's substantial market power and the anticompetitive nature of the Website Policy in finding substantial evidence supporting the FTC's ruling.
The panel also found that "the Commission properly rejected Realcomp's proffered justifications [for the Website Policy] as not 'legitimate, plausible, substantial and reasonable.'"
So far I can think of three takeaways here:
First, while Realcomp wasn't the only MLS targeted for alleged FTC Act violations, it was the only one that resisted the FTC's crackdown (the others having previously entered into consent decrees with the agency, which among other things likely saved them some serious attorneys' fees). Sometimes the herd is right.
Second, notwithstanding NAR's supposed financial support of Realcomp's legal challenge, Realcomp's Website Policy directly violated NAR's own rule prohibiting such discriminatory practices. Did Realcomp really think the FTC or an appeals court would bless conduct that NAR itself did not condone? Sometimes the folks upstairs are right.
Third, and most importantly, most forms of censorship are bad. If the effect of an MLS rule is to limit the dissemination of listings based upon listing type or terms, trouble is probably around the corner. Consider my favorite line from the opinion: "Restricting the online dissemination of home listings is especially pernicious because of the emerging competitive impact of the internet and of discounted brokerage services on the residential real-estate market." In other words, think twice before going up against market and technological forces.
Full post as published by Real Estate, Real Competition & The Law on October 04, 2020 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Bank Website Security
New Report Finds Widespread Flaws
State Farm Class Actions
Policy Holders Settle
Wal-Mart
Faces Class Action over Return Policy
Canceled Insurance
Judge orders Health Net Inc. to pay $9 million settlement after terminating a policyholder's policy after being diagnosed with breast cancer.
Explicit E-Mail
Adult website fined $413,000 in explicit e-mail matter.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million








