A mindful approach is required
Many of the legal concerns expressed by Pareja and Dwiggins are in the way that the seller is presented with the option to list the property from MLS.
“With these office monopolies, agents tell clients that they can use their internal network to test the market. In fact, they are persuading their clients to stomp their clients through misleading scripts and agreeing to allow the broker to try the two committees. Miller Law pllcrepresenting the plaintiff in the committee’s lawsuit.
Marx Stelkou, Managing Attorney Sterbcow Law Groupagree that agents and brokers should be careful to communicate to consumers about private listing networks. However, he does not feel this is very different to the care he thinks he will take now when dealing with other issues.
“I mean, they already have to see what they’re doing and tell the public,” Sterbcow said. “I think the real estate industry is broken in the eyes and Humpty Dumpty won’t be reverted, so it’s just trying to rile and create worries. We’re moving into a whole new industry and people need to see it.”
A year later featuring anti-trust litigation in the real estate industry, Sterbcow believes many agents and brokers are aiming to distance themselves from the NAR to reduce potential liability.
“The reality is that we continue our MLS and continue to have a clear policy of cooperation. This will only allow all of these big brokers to return to their potential antitrust issues in the future,” Sterbcow said. “And these brokers don’t trust NAR that much anymore. They’ve been in quite a bit of trouble by relying on them and their policies.”
Jerold Bregman’s partner BG Methodshares a similar view.
“Some people say that when there is an organization like NAR that monopolizes utilities using MLS, they use that power in a way that benefits a major or agent who chooses to become an exclusive right because it is a tool that is necessary for real estate agents to succeed.
“Seller’s rights are trampled on by this rule, which is imposed as monopolies in many markets by the NAR and raises anti-trust concerns.”
But Bregman also agrees with Miller and other industry experts. Agents may be liable if appropriate disclosure is not made to the client.
“We actually need disclosure. If an agent is creating a pocket list and keeping the list without listing the list in public MLS, I think being on both sides of the transaction will create a bigger committee.
Trading in trade?
However, this is not the only legal challenge that some industry experts are concerned about.
in 2023 Consumer Survey, Zillow 91% of buyers believe that there should be no barriers in one location and that all housing options should be viewed for free. This data suggests that buyers who learn that they can only access a specific list when working in collaboration with one brokerage or agent can sue these players for potential trade claims in trade.
“It’s a bit difficult for a client to claim to be a trustee when it completely omits supply and demand ideas by hiding a list from all possible buyers,” Miller said. “People who don’t want CCP are putting a stifling trade. They are trying to keep their competitors out and they are trying to turn a service that isn’t like into some sort of service. This is not useful to anyone other than the broker who is doing this. And I think it’s misleading.”
In addition to curbing trade, there is a possibility of fair housing violation claims against both agents and sellers who choose to use the private listing network, lawyer and chairman Charles Kane said. Alliance Solutions.
CCP requirements, especially “avoidance” in the market through Covid and spring of 22, were pocket lists,” Cain wrote in an email. “This still gave the official listing brokers time to shop prospects inside their stores before even giving them the opportunity to make sure the property is on sale to outside businesses.
“Fairhousing advocates said that in doing so it didn’t provide a level playing field, especially because there are frequent agreed future purchase offers within minutes that exist live on MLS, and there are even opportunities for minorities to bid at home. I think it’s a listing that raises some of the same risks, especially for private networks.”
Cain feels that some dissatisfied buyers will even go as long as they bring a fair housing claim against individual sellers who choose to use a private listing network instead of MLS.
“What if the seller says he wants to be listed only on a company or third-party independent site, not MLS? It may be that the seller has returned to the same fair residential box that pocket listings may have, but here it is a positive act by the seller,” writes Cain.
“I think it will change perspective and strengthen the fair housing debate for sellers thanks to the limited revelations of real estate for sale.”
But Bregman doesn’t think there’s a chance for these arguments.
“As long as discrimination comes into this debate, I think it’s a red herring issue. So I don’t think it’s the real driver of the debate,” Bregman said. “It is false grounds to argue in favor of the MLS list needed to promote the economic benefits of NAR and large brokerage companies that want to avoid with the “office monopoly” CCP and maintain an exclusive agent-only inventory. ”
While lawyers may not agree on the exact extent of legal risks when using private listing networks, if a company is considering moving in this direction, they agree that agents should be properly trained when discussing the pros and cons of listing and off with clients.
“I think smart real estate agents will have real conversations discussing the benefits and burdens of being at MLS,” Bregman said.
