Court of Appeal confirms that ‘no commingling’ is not an antitrust violation
Originally submitted by Rex in March 2021, the court case claims that changes have been made to the Zillow website “incorrectly provokes certain offers, reduces their exposure and reduces the competition between real estate agents.”
Two months earlier, Zillow started moving houses that were not mentioned on the MLS, outside the first search results of the users and on a second tab. This adhered to an optional NAR rule, which prevents those who choose to accept MLS listings with non-MLS listings.
Despite the fact that it did not support this rule, Zillow claims that it was forced to assume to obtain IDX FEEDS from MLSS who had done that. This has knocked down the two-tab design for MLS listings and “other entries”.
In May 2022, Rex stopped his brokerage activities. And just over a year later, the three parties involved in the case that each submitted Motions for a short judgment About the whole of the court case or parts of it.
Judge Thomas Zilly, who supervised the case, rejected Rex’s antitrust claims against Nar and Zillow. But he allowed the false advertising claim of the discount broker under the Lanham ActTogether with a claim for unfair or misleading commercial practices under the state of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, to stand.
During a trial in September 2023, the court ruled in favor of Zillow on the remaining charges. About six weeks later, Rex submitted his motion for a new process. In the request, Rex argued that it was prevented from presenting testimony about agent committees to the jury.
A jury in Seattle eventually discovered that Rex did not proved that Zillow used false advertisements in his decision to place non-MLS listings on another part of the website. It also discovered that Zillow proved his defense about Rex’s second claim that Zillow acted deceptively and unfairly.
Rex submitted his profession in February 2024 after Zilly had refused Rex’s motion for a new process.
In his decision, the Court of Appeal wrote that ‘the non-commanding rule itself is not direct evidence of coordinated action that’ associated with individual decision makers’. “
“Every nar-connected multiple listing service (” MLS “) chose independently whether he should take the rule, and indeed twenty-nine percent of them did not do that,” said the statement. “The rule was in fact optional and does not set any section 1 agreement in itself.”
The panel also wrote that Zillow made the decision to re -design his website to keep the rule on its own. It added that Rex did not provide “direct or indirect evidence that demonstrated that NAR inquired with this website design, or that Zillow did a little more than ‘just accept’ and meets the optional no-commanding rule that is announced by NAR and is adopted by some MLSs.”
Moreover, the ruling notes that the rule does not direct how Zillow or others should display individual entries from MLS and non-MLS sources.
“Thus, Rex cannot prove that Zillow and Nar are committed to a common, anti-competitive scheme and the court have correctly given a brief ruling,” the ruling states.
The ruling also deals with claims from Rex in oral arguments that Zillow consumed with individual MLSs to enforce the non-commanding rule.
“Rex has never made a concrete statement of a separate conspiracy involving Zillow and individual MLSS,” says the prevailing. “In his changed complaint, Rex repeatedly referred to the ‘Nar/MLS regime’ or ‘Nar/MLS cartel’. Rex also claimed a national conspiracy ‘[b]Ecause Zillow’s Universal Display Change Competent non-MLS entries are implemented nationally ‘and has not limited its allegations to only those jurisdictions where an MLS had taken over the non-commanding rule.
“Every conspiracy between Zillow and MLSS alone was not clearly raised before the court and does not have to be considered on appeal accordingly.”
In an e-mail statement, a spokesperson for Nar wrote that the decision emphasizes the statement of Nar that the non-commanding rule never was an antitrust violation.
“The rule is optional, so MLSS is the choice to accept it, and in fact 29% of them chose not to do that,” wrote the spokesperson. “We are pleased to place this deserving court case behind us and to keep our focus on delivering value for our membership.”
Zillow and Rex have not returned HousingThe requests for comments.
