“Flat is wrong” ruling?
According to Rex, the three-person panel’s decision to confirm the lower court’s ruling that the NAR’s optional non-competing rules are not antitrust violations is a false one. Rex claims a dispute of control with the precedent set by both US Supreme Court And then the 9th Circuit.
Rex believes the panel’s opinion is based on “the lack of evidence of coordinated behavior and the conclusion that Zillow “independently redesigned the website.” Rex argues that the panel’s view that the rules themselves are not direct evidence of coordinated actions is “false and clearly wrong.”
“Optional or not, the Norcommanring Rules were promulgated by NAR and NAR, an industry association made up of competing brokers and agents, unless they are acting in concerts using NAR to coordinate activities to protect committees and prevent competition before they occur.”
Rex says that perhaps the panel means that the rules are not direct evidence of coordinated action between NAR and Zillow. But ultimately, this is not what Rex feels like the panel means.
“Instead of realizing that what the panel said was the wrong path and the end result of a coordinated action by members of the NAR, the panel was unable to request that it prove an agreement between the NAR and Zillow as if it were a single entity separate from itself.
“It is because the rules themselves are the product of coordinated actions among NAR members, so we will later join the NAR and agree to adopt the rules, or adopt the rules, as explained by Zillow.
Furthermore, Rex believes that the panel made a mistake when dealing with MLSS owned by Realtor Associations, as if “has nothing to do with NAR.”
“However, this record shows that a local association of real estate agents, made up of NAR members, will establish a NAR-related MLSS that is owned or operated alone or in conjunction with other associations,” the petition states. “The implementation of the NAR MLSS is managed in detail by the NAR handbook, given that NAR members are exercised through national organizations through NAR MLSS and that NAR MLSS is a device for NAR members.”
In addition to these complaints, Rex believes the panel is misfocusing on what prompted the redesign of Zillow’s website and redesign instead of rules. By redesigning the website and separating the list, Zillow was involved in enforcing the rules.
Four Years of Court Battle
Time will tell if the Rex petition was successful.
The lawsuit, originally filed in March 2021, alleges that the changes to Zillow’s website “unfairly hide certain lists, reduce exposure and reduce competition among real estate brokers.”
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 it doesn’t support this rule, Zillow claims it was forced to adopt it to get an IDX feed from MLSS. This has precipitated two tab designs: MLS list and “other lists”.
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 the 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 allegedly was unfairly prevented from presenting testimony about the agent’s fees to the ju apprentice.
The Seattle ju apprentice eventually discovered that Rex did not prove that Zillow used false ads in its decision to place a non-MLS list in another section of the website. Zillow also found that Zillow proved its defense with Rex’s second claim that he misbehaved unfairly.
Rex filed the appeal in February 2024 after Gilly refused to file a new trial.
