FTC declares websites public property

guerilla

guerilla

All we do is win
Aug 18, 2007
11,426
428
0
No
This may be of interest to people doing local marketing in a big way. It should be of interest to anyone who publishes geo-specific information in the US.

Another Government Takeover - S.M. Oliva - Mises Economics Blog

Three years ago, I noted the Federal Trade Commission had begun a takeover of privately-owned multiple listing services -- online databases used by local real estate brokers. The FTC unilaterally decided that the existing MLS model was outdated and that all listings should be made available to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis

Nevermind the fact that the brokers were the ones who expended the resources to build the MLS and compile the listings: Once a product or service becomes popular, the government considers it a "public utility" subject to state control. The FTC made that abundantly clear today in announcing an order against a Michigan-based MLS, Realcomp:

The Federal Trade Commission today issued an Opinion finding that Realcomp II - a Michigan-based realtors' group - violated federal law by restricting the ability of member real estate agents to offer consumers lower-priced alternatives to traditional real estate services. Realcomp refused to transmit discount real estate listings to its own and other publicly available Web sites and excluded such listings from the default searches within its own database. The Commission found that these policies restricted access to these listings and harmed competition. The FTC's Final Order requires Realcomp to provide its members non-discriminatory access to non-traditional and lower-price listings on its Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and to stop preventing such listings from being sent to its public real estate sites.

In its Opinion announced today, the Commission found that "the practices at issue improperly limit consumers' access to information about the availability of these lower-priced alternatives," and . . . concluded "that [Realcomp's] acts and practices unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act . . . and Section 5."
​

Access to real estate listings is now the sacred birthright of every citizen, but not the right to control the content and use of one's database or website. FTC-manufactured "law" now holds that all decisions regarding the distribution of content to websites and databases will be made by unelected, unaccountable lawyers in Washington. This is necessary to protect "consumers."

This means the FTC can require certain content be published -- and also that certain content be censored, such as anything having to do with the medicinal use of herbs

The other implication of the Realcomp order is that the FTC has the power to decide what business models are acceptable in the marketplace. The FTC explicitly stated its goal was to drive smaller, full-service brokers out of business. This might have happened anyhow if the market were left to its own devices, but the FTC views "competition" as a measurable quantity: If the level of competition is insufficient, government intervention can bring it back to acceptable levels.
Click to expand...
 


I bet $10 this is tied to listings of HUD homes and other government properties. If the service was taking government money by listing these homes (and local/state/federal foreclosures on HUD homes) then the FTC is well within it's legal right to do this ruling.

I'm not saying I agree with it - but as always - when you take someone else's money you play by their rules. Period.
 
Now that's an overhyped, partisan biased description of it. This is a Sherman anti-trust issue, most likely brought to the FTC's attention by member discount real estate companies being unfairly discriminated against by the MLS provider.
violated federal law by restricting the ability of member real estate agents to offer consumers lower-priced alternatives to traditional real estate services
Click to expand...
That's not a government takeover.
 
Sharksfan said:
I bet $10 this is tied to listings of HUD homes and other government properties. If the service was taking government money by listing these homes (and local/state/federal foreclosures on HUD homes) then the FTC is well within it's legal right to do this ruling.

I'm not saying I agree with it - but as always - when you take someone else's money you play by their rules. Period.
Click to expand...
No, this is about anti-trust not public funding.

Basically, if you get big enough to be a dominant player, even in a local metro market, be careful. Because your competitors will force you to advertise their listings or products through the FTC and Sherman Act. That is why most markets have duopolies or oligopolies, so no one company can be accused of a monopoly (not that it is a crime to kick ass). Examples include Intel/AMD, Ford/Chrysler/GM etc. They all compete just enough to make it look like there is some competition.

This is important to people working in local markets. Not the nickel and dime webmasters, but anyone doing local in a significant way in a major metro market. If you have competitors, it is wise to sort out some sort of protection racket between you, before someone goes to the feds and claims your site is a public good which restricts access to the market.

There is going to be a lot more of this over the next few years, as it is what happened during the Depression. When times get tough, people run to the government to prop up their businesses and punish their competitors.

Some smart marketers might even turn snitches. I don't approve of it, but the tactic is there...
 
Realtors have been running illegal monopolies, for a very long time. Personally I think it is about time their monopoly came to an end. Very few Realtors provide any real value to sellers beyond placing houses in the MLS and the perverse incentives for buyers agents almost guarantees a conflict of interest.

Last Realtor I used didn't do anything other than drive me around open a couple of doors and try to push me into over paying for a house.
 
johu said:
This is a Sherman anti-trust issue, most likely brought to the FTC's attention by member discount real estate companies being unfairly discriminated against by the MLS provider.
Click to expand...
How can they be unfairly discriminated against? The MLS listings don't show discount prices. Period. That is the MLS' call.

It's like wickedfire saying no BST threads about selling email lists. Just because someone is a member, even a premium member, doesn't mean they get to dictate policy to the property/business/club controlling interest.

Anti-trust law is ridiculous. The definitions of what constitutes anti-trust are arbitrary and change whenever it is politically expedient to do so. Anyway, if I wanted to debate the politics of it, I would have placed it in STS. But I didn't. I wanted to give marketers a heads up on the latest actions of the FTC.
 
guerilla said:
Because your competitors will force you to advertise their listings or products through the FTC and Sherman Act. That is why most markets have duopolies or oligopolies, so no one company can be accused of a monopoly (not that it is a crime to kick ass). Examples include Intel/AMD, Ford/Chrysler/GM etc. They all compete just enough to make it look like there is some competition.
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like the discount Realtors were members of this MLS organization, not competitors. You and I both have no clue about any contractual details or legal details involved here.

As for anti-trust laws, I'm not the biggest fan of them, coming from a family where my great grandfather's business was sued by the government under the Sherman anti-trust act for monopolizing his industry (resulting in a judgement against his company).
 
Well done guys you've just sucessfully bored the shit out of me. What this has to do with affiliate marketing I do not know.
 
dably said:
Realtors have been running illegal monopolies, for a very long time. Personally I think it is about time their monopoly came to an end. Very few Realtors provide any real value to sellers beyond placing houses in the MLS and the perverse incentives for buyers agents almost guarantees a conflict of interest.

Last Realtor I used didn't do anything other than drive me around open a couple of doors and try to push me into over paying for a house.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of Realtors that are worth their weight in gold , heck, the average savings I've calculated to my buyers is around $10k per property compared to their last agent, due to the fact I know how to negotiate with banks.

If Realtors are useless, then 80% of buyers and sellers wouldn't use them.

And FYI , the last INDEPENDANT poll said that around 85% of people who have bought/sold homes themselves wish they would have used a Realtor due to all the legal issues involved with selling a house.

At a minimum , every person who buys or sells a home should have a lawyer involved. This added with the fact that there's about a 10% loss to sellers who sell without a realtor and a 5% loss to buyers who buy without one ,it's sort of a losing scenario.

I know how to get properties financed in my area, most of the time when I present a financing option/idea to a buyer, even with their hours of online research (And mind you, most buyers I deal with anymore spend about 50 hours online reading about real estate and the related stuff) they still haven't read online what I provide to em.

The national association of realtors has spent MILLIONS of dollars on developing the MLS , I'm sure you guys know that in the early 70s many MLS systems were utilizing electronic faxes to send B&W photos of homes to relocation companies across the US.

Doing a MLS system up untill very recently has been expensive and time consuming, anymore it seems to be a issue of having a good server and enough willing people to do it. I've seen PLENTY of local attempts to copy the local realtor-only MLS systems, and they've all failed misserably.
 
Im just throwing this out there, but you say 85% of people wish they used a realtor...
I say 75% of those people are sheeple.
 
Sounds like a Internet "fairness doctrine" to me. Just more big govenrnment takeover shit.
 
popeye said:
Sounds like a Internet "fairness doctrine" to me. Just more big govenrnment takeover shit.
Click to expand...
So, what did the government take over here? You're starting to sounds like a conservative sheeple-type, to me.
 
If you have a lawyer - and anyone on this site who is serious probably should have at least one - selling a house is a non-issue. You so do NOT need a realtor for that.

Buying a house on the other hand is something you also don't need a realtor for - what you really need is a mortgage broker. Last time I dealt with a realtor it was exactly the same as hitting myself over the head with a hammer - it feels SO good when you stop.

The job of "realtor" is going the way of the job "buggy whip salesman". The internet will kill it for 99% of housing.
 
Ok so a group of professionals ran a MLS system. They set up specific rules to not do business with other professionals purely based on the prices they charged the customer.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how it's not anti-competitive when a group of people get together in an industry and agree to charge a certain price and agree that they will all not do business with anyone that charges a lower price.

I think it's stretching the similarities to say this is establishing any precedent about forcing 3rd party owners of directories to allow anyone to list. It's about a group of professionals getting together to agree to only charge a certain price or higher and not do business with anyone else.
 
miketpowell said:
I'm sorry but I fail to see how it's not anti-competitive when a group of people get together in an industry and agree to charge a certain price and agree that they will all not do business with anyone that charges a lower price.
Click to expand...
The point is that NOBODY here has read the case, done legal research, or is a lawyer. There has to be more than that involved, since I'm sure this isn't an isolated case. The bottom line is that a ruling was made, after what I can imagine was an extensive legal battle from both sides, yet actions from one party were deemed to be against current laws of some sort.
 
"And FYI , the last INDEPENDANT poll said that around 85% of people who have bought/sold homes themselves wish they would have used a Realtor due to all the legal issues involved with selling a house."

Realtors are quick to not discuss legal issues since they are not licensed attorneys. They could be liable for any legal advise they dispense.

Realtors suck.
 
Due to how prevalent real estate is online, it's turned everyone into their own 'I'm better than a Realtor' type.

What you need to understand is , I've worked with a few dozen people who have read all the articles, and did everything imaginable to try and be their own agent, and I've seen it cost them a great deal of money.

Let's take these scenario :

Buyer is buying a property in a rural area on 10/1/2009,and wants to use a USDA loan on the property , and utilize the first-time homebuyer tax credit as well as she wants to use her attorney to write all contracts. What's the problem with this?

Buyer has been looking for a property for a while, and finds one in a part of town they like, and decides to put an offer on it, how much do they offer for the property?

Furthermore , real estate is a VERY local phenomenon , which requires you do know a good deal of information about your local area. Who pays for title insurance ,appraisals, warranties, inspections, termite inspections , ect.

Are termite inspections required to buy a house 30 years old?
What kind of mortgages assignable by default?
Is the homeowner required to leave you a garage door opener when they sell the property?

In addition to this, most people have to end up dealing with local contractors/inspectors and the like, so how does one determine which one is the best? I've had people pay 3 times the average amount for a home inspector who didn't note major structural faults, all because they decided they'd use Google to find a inspector instead of reading over the list we had given them of some of the top rated inspectors in the area.

I am NOT saying that someone can't learn how real estate works and do it themselves, however, after spending time and calculating it out , I would say that a person would have to spend a minimum of 400 hours of education to learn enough to get on par with what a decent real estate agent is. In my area, the average sales commission is $4,000 ,which would mean you've made about $10 per hour of effort spent, if you go out and do it yourself, not including a attorney fee, which is about $1,000 in my area (Lowering you to about a $3000 savings, or $7.50/hr , which is 5 cents more per hour than wal-mart pays to start out with).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom