Comments on: “The MLS is an unfair monopoly” — but is it?

By: Soko

Soko — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:06:08 +0000

MLS is a bit of a monopoly b/c they are by far the most used. The competitors are tiny by comparison of usage; the new sell by owner websites are about the only thing close to making a dent.

By: Farrah

Farrah — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:39:32 +0000

Someone above asked about the East Bay MLS…I agree, it’s much easier for the public to directly access the SF MLS. Many of my clients access East Bay MLS info on third-party websites like realtor.com, movoto.com, and redfin.com. Whatever they use, they can often find the same properties as I can although they are not privy to the confidential remarks, sold info or data manipulation functions members of the ebrdi have. Also, if you like, you can search through my website, I won’t bug you if you just want to search the MLS.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:12:00 +0000

BB-Smurf, this wasn’t just some idiot filing a lawsuit. It was the U.S. Department of Justice. And they obtained a settlement. I agree the conspiring oil companies was not an exact analogy. The point I was making is that anytime you have an agreement among competitors, like the NAR/MLS, the rules are quite different because of the inherent anticompetitive risks in such agreements. So the phone book data compiled by the single phone company really is not the same thing. Here, the NAR had rules pretty obviously designed to prevent its members from using the joint data in more efficient ways so they could all retain monopoly power. It does not matter that the same data could theoretically be compiled somewhere else.

By: BB-Smurf

BB-Smurf — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:00:27 +0000

Hey anon,

I’m an atty too and I don’t think you’re making accurate comparisons. NAR/MLS is nothing like oil companies colluding to raise oil prices. If you wanna know how much your bought his house for, you can look it up in the assessor/recorder’s office.

It’s more similar to a phone book. If you’ll recall the Supreme Court of the US said that the raw info in a phone book is fair game because it was public information freely available through other channels. But the format of publication and manner in which the information was gathered are protected as trade secrets, copyrighted info and etc.

While it would be nice to have full access to the MLS, I understand fluj’s and the NAR’s point. Also, just because some idiot files a law suit, that doesn’t give his claims merits. It just means he can meet the burden of pleading, which we both know is a VERY LOW standard.

By: kenneth kohlmyer a k a fluj

kenneth kohlmyer a k a fluj — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:17:45 +0000

By the way, I had read the suit before. But I just read the settlement: http://www.inman.com/news/2008/05/27/doj-nar-agree-settle-antitrust-lawsuit

What do you think this really changes, anon?

By: kenneth kohlmyer a k a fluj

kenneth kohlmyer a k a fluj — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:51:30 +0000

“The point is that the NAR/MLS prohibits members from providing information in a way that would lower their costs.”

I understand this, your main point, and I do not see how it could be proven. A court would need to put a fine point on commissions versus sales prices and assign relative values to agency versus information.

And again, the information is already freely obtainable.

By: ?

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:40:35 +0000

Can someone tell me what’s the best way to access the MLS for East Bay properties? San Francisco MLS is a great site but I can’t find a public one to use for the East Bay. Thanks in advanced.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:38:25 +0000

Fluj, you’ve got it all wrong. First, under the antitrust laws you don’t need to prove that the concerted action in restraint of trade directly caused the 5% commission. The point is that the NAR/MLS prohibits members from providing information in a way that would lower their costs. Second, your hypothetical has nothing at all to do with the antitrust issues. Those arise out of the agreement among competitors to prohibit members from sharing the information with their customers as they would like to do. This has nothing to do with any “perspective” (sic) buyer being “entitled” to anything.

Go read the Department of Justice lawsuit filings. It is not that complicated, but you should hold off on commenting until you know what the legal and factual issues are.

By: kenneth kohlmyer a k a fluj

kenneth kohlmyer a k a fluj — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:26:38 +0000

By that logic also one could argue that if a buyer is hypothetically interested in a property for sale that is next door to a similar property which in contract and not yet sold, the perspective buyer should be entitled to know what the neighboring property’s contingent price is. Price is potentially affected by the lack of disclosure, right? Well, sure it is. But it’s not a done deal and there are a million reasons for such proceedings to remain private.

By: kenneth kohlmyer a k a fluj

kenneth kohlmyer a k a fluj — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:21:49 +0000

People can already get that information, number one. Two, positing that 5% or so commissions is only a direct result of the MLS would be tough to prove in court I would think.