WASHINGTON – The Justice Department gave online real estate brokers – and potentially their clients – a boost Tuesday by forcing a new industry policy opening access to home listings the agents were previously denied.
In a court settlement, government attorneys said the National Association of Realtors could no longer discriminate against Internet-based agents by blocking them from the group’s multiple listing service, a database of for-sale properties.
“When there is unfettered competition from brokers with innovative and efficient approaches to the residential real estate market, consumers are likely to receive better services and pay lower commission rates,” said Deborah A. Garza, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s antitrust division.
The National Association of Realtors eased some of its policies against online brokers when the Justice Department filed suit in September 2005. The group called Tuesday’s settlement a “win-win” and noted that it will neither pay a fine nor admit any liability as part of the agreement.
“Today I can say with the clear knowledge – reinforced and underscored by DOJ’s settlement compromise – that the real estate industry is dynamic, entrepreneurial and fiercely competitive,” NAR President Richard F. Gaylord said in a statement. “Thanks to Realtors, consumers can access detailed information about millions of properties for sale across the country.”
The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission released a report last year that said limits on discount brokers’ access to Web listings of for-sale properties has prevented consumers from receiving the cost savings and other benefits that online competition has brought to other industries.
The report found that more consumers use the Web when house hunting than rely on “For Sale” yard signs.
Its a win-win, that why we fought this for 3 years because our firm loves paying lawyer fees. Ve did nothing wrong. And you still get no data, no data for you.
Its a win-win, that why we fought this for 3 years because our firm loves paying lawyer fees. Ve did nothing wrong. And you still get no data, no data for you.
Its a win-win, that why we fought this for 3 years because our firm loves paying lawyer fees. Ve did nothing wrong. And you still get no data, no data for you.
Its a win-win, that why we fought this for 3 years because our firm loves paying lawyer fees. Ve did nothing wrong. And you still get no data, no data for you.
Its a win-win, that why we fought this for 3 years because our firm loves paying lawyer fees. Ve did nothing wrong. And you still get no data, no data for you.
Supposedly Sandicor has not restricted there data in the past and si unaffected by this agreement. Can anyone verify this and comment on any affect in San Diego?
Does anyone have any comments on Sandicor’s new policy that every user has to possess some type of key fob and have it adjacent to the computer for access.
Supposedly Sandicor has not restricted there data in the past and si unaffected by this agreement. Can anyone verify this and comment on any affect in San Diego?
Does anyone have any comments on Sandicor’s new policy that every user has to possess some type of key fob and have it adjacent to the computer for access.
Supposedly Sandicor has not restricted there data in the past and si unaffected by this agreement. Can anyone verify this and comment on any affect in San Diego?
Does anyone have any comments on Sandicor’s new policy that every user has to possess some type of key fob and have it adjacent to the computer for access.
Supposedly Sandicor has not restricted there data in the past and si unaffected by this agreement. Can anyone verify this and comment on any affect in San Diego?
Does anyone have any comments on Sandicor’s new policy that every user has to possess some type of key fob and have it adjacent to the computer for access.
.
