Inman on Tour: Increase the volume of real estate success in Nashville! Connect with industry pioneers and top speakers, gain insights, cutting-edge strategies and valuable connectivity. Increase your business and achieve your most audacious goals – all with Music City Magic. Sign up now.
The 9th Circuit’s three-person review board has now been repealed as the question that Zillow worked with the National Association of Realtors to cooperate with the disadvantages of the Nonmultiple Listing Service list. We have added this to the lawyers at Rex, a discount securities company. On the portal website.
Rex, also known as the real estate exchange, is trapped in a long-standing legal campaign against Zillow and NAR, arguing for a policy change that helped bring discount brokerages out of business.
The company filed a lawsuit in the 9th Circuit on Thursday. There, lawyers from Zillow, Rex, NAR and Department of Justice focus on changing Zillow’s business model, and trade whether NAR’s no-comaring rules were really optional or equivalent to illegal binding. .
This case became an MLS participant for Zillow’s decision in 2019 and an MLS participant to obtain an Internet Data Exchange (IDX) list.
Among these rules were the so-called no-camming rules, which attempted to separate NAR-related lists from other lists.
After participating in hundreds of MLSS and obtaining IDX feeds, Zillow adhered to the rules from January 2021 by creating a two-tab system on its website. Lists that comply with the no-commering rules were what users saw by default. If you want to view non-MLS lists, users will need to click on the tab labeled “Other Lists.”
This change has caused a plunge in Zillow’s non-MLS list views. Rex defeated the housing brokerage about 18 months later.
On Thursday, at least one judge appears to imply that Rex’s case was centered around Zillow’s business decision to redesign the website.
“What seemed the most problematic to your client was the layout and design of the website,” said Judge Daniel Aaron Bless. “That’s the question I have. When the district court characterizes the issues your client has with this, it seems the problem is more specifically on the website.”
Rex’s lawyers tried to focus on the panel on the no-commering rules themselves and Zillow’s decision to begin following it.
“Our position was that the agreement on trade control was a separation of agreements,” Ursula Ungaro argued. “Yes, the website is the implementation of rules. But under this court’s decision [a separate case]the starting point is restraint. What happens beyond that is implementation and there should be no consequences. ”
“Zillow, if it wasn’t combined with NAR, it could have taken the position it wanted for Rex,” Ungaro later added. “The problem is that Zillow was combined with NAR in an anti-competitive scheme.”
Bress and judge Ana de Alba repeatedly highlighted the design of Zillow’s website. Ungaro’s question returned the focus to the rules themselves as the source of illegal schemes.
“How could Zillow change its business model to retrieve IDX data and avoid antitrust liability?” asked De Alba.
“I don’t know. I wasn’t really thinking about it. But the fact in question is that you need to participate in an anti-competitive scheme to get your IDX data,” Ungaro replied.
Is it an option?
The judges also returned to the fact that no-commering rules were technically optional and that 71% of the MLSS adopted them. The question is central to Rex’s discussion of appeal.
Ungaro argued that the rules were virtually not an option. Instead, she said it represents a coordinated action by NAR and MLS participants like Zillow to curb trade.
“Our position on the optional label attached to the rules is that it’s a red herring. The real problem is cooperative action,” Ungaro said. “For almost a century, the US Supreme Court has seen past options labels.”
“One level is optional. At the next level, it is not optional. It is required. If the MLS adopts it, it must be imposed on the participant. If the participant violates the rules , they are subject to sanctions,” she said. “It’s important to note that for Zillow’s purposes, one of the sanctions could have been a loss of the IDX feed.”
Ungaro noted that the NAR directed that it would not change the rules for delinquency if adopted.
Zillow and Nar respond
Zillow has worked to focus on compliance with the rules as an update to its website.
Zillow’s lawyer Steve Engel suggests that Rex is trying to change the argument after several previous court losses, and that Rex has been made for Rex before Rex sued Jirow. I shed light on the obvious compromise I said.
Both Zillow and Nar worked to argue that there was no agreement between Zillow and Nar.
“The reason the district court thought the no-ringing rule option was relevant is because Rex allegedly claimed a direct conspiracy and agreement between NAR and Zillow,” Engel said. “It’s certainly relevant to determining whether there is no agreement between the two, but I think that every NAR that NAR did proposes optional rules 20 years ago It’s certainly related.”
Engel suggested that there is a kind of hierarchy of NAR rules, with no-commering rules being the lowest.
“NARs have mandatory rules. NARs recommend rules, and NARs have optional rules,” he insisted. “This is the lowest category of moral variation or any kind of variation that the NAR does.”
Before updating its business model in 2021, Zillow reported hosting an estimated 98% of all lists. However, it noted that there was a big gap in some markets, with 30% to 35% of listings missing before moving on to the IDX feed model.
Engel said Zillow has created a framework for what is called a “workaround” for rules that would allow Rex listings to appear on their main site in exchange for $1 per listing.
“Before Girou presented this to Rex, Rex sued,” Engel said.
DOJ weight is included
The discussion also included the emergence of the Department of Justice. The Justice Department previously submitted an Amicus brief in the June incident in favor of either party. Although the DOJ has not taken a clear stand in the ultimate outcome of the case, it asks the court to control Rex’s support and send the case back to the district court.
Alice A. Wang, the attorney general for the DOJ’s antitrust division, focused on the issue of options and said the district court did not consider two of the three key points.
“In reality, optional rules may be mandatory,” Wang said, laying out the first point. “Secondly, adopting optional rules itself could be a coordinated action.”
“Third, the optional rules could serve as an invitation for others to participate in a common plan,” Wang added.
She says the district court saw the first point, not the first or third, and she asks the judge to rule in Rex’s favor.
Email Taylor Anderson
