MLS Committe moves to ban "MLS" from realtor sites

[Morristown]

I received a phone call from Inman News last night on the subject and they did a write up about the issue here. Paul was also cited in the article:

http://www.inman.com/inmannews.aspx?ID=65679

OK, read the article. This part of it really sticks in my craw NAR officials did not respond today to Inman News questions about the code and standards and how it applies to usage of 'MLS' and related terms by members. It strongly implies to me that the NAR officials know they are doing something dirty, and that they cannot stand up to press questions and look intelligent.

NAR & Intelligent what was I thinking when I said that???

[Michael Paul Eau Claire]

No problem, I'm used to people confusing my name.

[Benjamin Dona]

Good job guys. Any press coverage helps to expose the hypocrisy of it all.

@Jim - Could not of said it better myself.

[KarenRice]

What surprises me about this is the seeming lack of concern for this that a lot of realtors seem to display.

what are we, lemmings?

[Bigtoe]

Is that you perky?

Most agents get nothing from the internet so they don't care or they are jealous of those who do and don't mind seeing us get taken down a notch.

[KarenRice]

yeah, that's me. so much for a super secret identity. ha ha

[Benjamin Dona]

It's "like lambs to the slaughter". Most just don't get it or don't care or like Bigtoe said, "are jealous" and too lazy to do anything about it.

[999]

The current rash of “Ethics Violations” complaints brought by local boards against members with websites containing “mls” in their domain names, as enabled by NAR’s revision of Article 12, is nothing more than an attempted power grab and theft of intellectual property worth billions of dollars. This theft is being enabled by a campaign to “outlaw” and eliminate the use of the term “MLS” by member brokers nationwide.

This would benefit NAR and member boards greatly, to the detriment of many internet savvy member brokers and the public. Once usage of “MLS” is outlawed, NAR will trademark a new term which only they will have legal use of. From that point forward, only NAR, NAR’s business partners (like Move.com and Realtor.com) and member boards will have the right to use the new terminology. This will result in Billions of dollars worth of lucrative internet home buying traffic being diverted from individual member brokers to NAR, its partners and affiliates.

While researching legal arguments to help us defend ourselves from this attempted theft of our intellectual property, I came across the Department of Justice’s 2005 Anti- Trust Complaint against NAR.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f211000/211009.pdf

It is eerily similar… clearly a case of NAR moving to restrain and restrict internet innovation and competition for internet traffic at the behest of the “big boys” and “old school” brokers. Once again NAR is attempting to “outlaw” legal marketing techniques in order to divert potential internet traffic from innovative, internet savvy brokers. This time however, the intended beneficiary of the increase in internet traffic and the resulting profits are the NAR itself and its “partners”.

Below is a virtual complaint that I created just by substituting appropriate terms for the attempt to ban the use of “MLS” in web marketing for the terms referring to previous attempts to ban virtual office websites. VERY little editing was needed to become a semi-lucid condemnation of this attempted information superhighway robbery, because the crime is so similar.

[999]

MY (HYPOTHETICAL) COMPLAINT

The United States of America, by its attorneys acting under the direction of the Attorney
General, brings this civil action pursuant to Section 4 of the Sherman Act.

The United States alleges:

The United States brings this action to enjoin the defendant – a national
association of real estate brokers – from maintaining or enforcing a policy that restrains
competition from brokers who use the Internet to more efficiently and cost effectively serve home sellers and buyers, and from adopting other related anticompetitive rules.

Since websites (allowing public access to MLS listings) were first developed in the late
1990s, brokers’ use of the Internet in connection with their delivery of brokerage services has become an important competitive alternative to traditional “brick-and-mortar” business models.

Defendant’s members include traditional brokers who are concerned about
competition from Internet-savvy brokers. Before defendant adopted its policy, several of its members voiced opposition to brokers’ delivery of listings to customers through their (Public access “MLS” websites) websites.

–
The head of the working group created by defendant to develop regulations for (Public access “MLS” websites) argued that defendant should act quickly in adopting regulations for the use of these websites because brokers operating (Public access “MLS” websites) were “scooping up market share just below the radar.”

In response to such concerns, defendant, through its members, adopted a policy
(the no use of letters “MLS” in naming websites Policy) limiting this form of competition. The (the no use of letters “MLS” in naming websites Policy) significantly alters the rules governing broker members of multiple listing services.
Defendant’s local Realtor associations “member boards” control a majority of the MLSs in the United States. By attempting to “outlaw” the use of the letters MLS in their broker members internet marketing, they will decrease competition from internet savvy brokers and increase the power of NAR and the “member boards”.

The group that formulated the (the no use of letters “MLS” in naming websites) Policy understood that this was fundamentally anticompetitive and harmful to “broker members”.
The (the no use of letters “MLS” in naming websites) Policy restricts the manner in which brokers with efficient, Internet- based business models may provide listings to their customers, in the guise of protecting the public. It also imposes constraints on trade and additional restrictions on internet savvy member brokers operating (Public access “MLS” websites) that do not apply to, NAR, NARs for profit partner realtor.com, their 3rd party/non Realtor member competitors, or even the member boards themselves.

Defendant thus attempts to denys member brokers using innovative business models, the same benefits available to their competitors, while reserving the use of the non trademarked term “MLS” to NAR, their business partners and their member boards. It suppresses innovation, discourages competition for internet traffic and reduces consumer choice.

Defendant– an association of competitors – has agreed to a policy that suppresses competition and harms consumers, and its own members.


NATURE OF THE OFFENSE

Brokers with innovative, Internet-based business models present a competitive
challenge to brokers who provide listings to their customers only by traditional methods. Many brick-and-mortar brokers fear the ability of (Public access “MLS” websites) operators to use Internet technology to attract more customers and provide better service at a lower cost.

In response to concerns raised by certain NAR members about this new form of
Competition for potential internet traffic, NAR’s Board of Directors voted in 2007 to adopt the (Public access “MLS” websites) Policy, a “Policy governing the use of the letters “MLS” in connection with Internet services offered by MLS Participants.

NAR has mandated that all 1,600 of its member
boards implement the (Public access “MLS” websites) Policy by January 1, 2008.

In contrast, prior to NAR’s adoption of the (Public access “MLS” websites) Policy, a broker could provide any relevant listing in the MLS database to any customer – by whatever website name or description the member broker preferred, via the Internet.

VIOLATION ALLEGED

NAR’s adoption of the above-referenced provisions in its (the no use of letters “MLS” in naming websites) policy, or equivalent provisions, constitutes a contract, combination, or conspiracy by and between NAR and its member boards which unreasonably restrains competition in brokerage service markets throughout the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The aforesaid contract, combination, or conspiracy has had and will continue to
have anticompetitive effects in the relevant markets, including:
a. suppressing technological innovation;
b. reducing competition on price and quality

[thataway61]

Nice post 999.

Perhaps a class action by those that presently use the generic terms would be better than an antitrust action.