Two months earlier, Zillow began moving homes that were not listed in MLS to the second tab from the first user search results. This adhered to optional NAR rules. This prevents MLS listings from being hired by those who choose to put them on a non-MLS list. Despite noting that this rule does not support it, Zillow has made its IDX feed from the MLSS that has precipitated two TAB designs: MLS list and “other lists”. They claim they were forced to hire.
May 2022, Rex The securities company has been suspended. And about a year later, the three political parties involved in the incident were submitted. Appeal for summary judgment either in the whole or in part of the lawsuit.
Judge Thomas Gilly, who overseen the case, dismissed Rex’s antitrust allegations against NAR and Zillow. However, he allowed to claim false advertising for discount brokerage Lanham’s Lawstands with claims of unfair or deceptive trade practices under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.
At a September 2023 trial, the court ruled that it would uphold Zillow against the remaining charges. About six weeks later, Rex filed a new trial application. In the request, Rex argued that it was unfairly prevented from presenting testimony about the agent’s fees to the ju apprentice.
A Seattle ju-deciding member finally discovers that Rex did not prove that Zillow used false ads in its decision to post a non-MLS list in another section of the website, and Zillow said We found Zillow proved defense against Rex’s second claim that it was both deceptive and unfair.
Rex appealed Gilly’s ruling in February 2024, denying the now-settled intermediary. In a new court request, Rex allegedly was unfairly prevented from presenting testimony about the agent’s committee to the ju apprentice.
Gilly said that although the ju’s verdict is not a result of “procedural flaws” or “errors on the part of the court”, due to Rex’s fault in presenting evidence that rex has been hurt. I’ve decided. For this reason, Zilly ruled in January 2024 that Rex would not be allowed to go to a new trial.
DOJ became involved in the appeal when it filed Amicus Curiae Brief in June 2024. Like Rex, the DOJ had some issues with how the district court handled the case.
The DOJ argued that despite being an option, the NAR’s “non-mixing” rule could still support anti-competitive behavior.
In the filing, the DOJ outlined three ways in which optional rules are believed to involve collaborative actions by the parties involved in their creation or implementation.
1) In practice, optional rules may be mandatory.
2) The association’s adoption of optional rules could itself be a coordinated action.
3) Optional rules can be invited to others to participate in a common plan.
The DOJ repeated these three frameworks in five minutes that were granted to speak on appeal.
Alice Wang, who represented DOJ at the hearing, said the department was “to protect the legal framework for coordinated action.”
Wang pointed out that NAR and Zillow did not challenge any of these theories in their submission to the district court. According to Wang, there is an aspect of the scheme that separates and hides the list claimed by Rex, which fits the third framework presented by the DOJ.
“As the district court discovered, NAR created and adopted rules without membership rings and published rules for the Handbook, a handbook for MLSS to adopt. Records include relevant provisions for the Handbook. There was also evidence that MLSS was banned, which prohibited adopting changes to the rules so that all members would adopt the same rule if they chose to do so. And we have an action to show acceptance,” the king said.
“The district court has found that a majority of MLSS accepted the invitation and chose to adopt non-competitive rules. And they are not allowed to implement and follow non-competitive rules for members like Zillow. I’m requesting that.”
The DOJ felt that the district court considered only the initial framework, determined that the rules were optional and that no enforcement mechanism existed, and that they had decided that they had moved ahead.
“Without an enforcement mechanism, it probably suggests that the rules are really optional,” Wang argued. “However, in theory 3, for example, an enforcement mechanism is not required for an invitation to a common plan adopted afterwards.”
For this reason, the DOJ urged the Court of Appeals to leave Gilly’s decision and remand the case to the lower court.
When asked if the rule was really an option, Ursula Ungaro, who spoke on Rex’s behalf, argued that the rule was no longer an option when MLS adopted it. This forced all participants to adhere to it. This is why Zillow now adopts a conflict-free rule to gain access to IDX feeds.
“If MLS adopted it, the rules required that MLSS impose the rules on MLS participants, such as MLS subscribers,” Ungaro said. “It’s optional at some levels, but is required if MLS is using it.”
According to Ungaro, Zillow was a critic of the voice of the rules without competition – would not have adopted a two-tab website design for the rules. By quarantining Rex’s list from the MLS list, Zillow has become an active member of the plot, she said.
In rebuttal to the DOJ and Rex argument, both NAR and Zillow pointed out that only 71% of the MLSS adopted the rules. NAR added that it was unaware of this figure until it was forced to compile the data as part of the findings of the lawsuit.
“If Rex was 99.9%, I think Rex has a stronger case,” said Chris Michelle, Naar’s lawyer, at the hearing. Some of the biggest MLS including California Regional MLSThe largest of the country does not adopt it. There are no results from NAR, and it remains the largest MLS in the country, not only does the NAR impose results, but it doesn’t even track which MLS is doing it. ”
Michelle also addressed Rex’s claim that Zillow had signed a conspiracy with NAR.
“First and foremost, the NAR option model rules are not agreeing that no one will do anything. They are completely optional,” Michelle said. “As long as Zillow is requested not to conspire with the list, that is, for the interventional decisions of different MLSS.”
Zillow’s lawyer Steve Engel told the court that when it came to discussing rules options, this was not a Zillow option and therefore it was not a lawsuit addressing it. Engel argued that Zillow had signed up for the IDX feed and that the rules should be implemented within the MLSS jurisdiction that adopted the rules.
“The district court correctly granted summary judgment on the records because Rex had not established evidence of a boycott of NAR and Zillow, demonstrations, concealment and agreement on Rex’s list,” Engel said.
He also said that Zillow independently created a two-tab website design, reiterating the fact that Zillow opposes the rule to NAR.
At the end of the discussion, the court noted that the matter had been filed. It is unclear when the appeals court will rule.
