Multiple Listing Service, Inc., Docket No. C-4215 (2007): Milwaukee

The Commission’s complaint alleged that Multiple Listing Service, Inc., the only MLS in the Milwaukee area with over 6500 members, adopting anticompetitive rules and policies that limited the publication and marketing of certain sellers’ properties based solely on the terms of their respective listing contracts.  Information about properties was not made available on popular real estate web sites unless the listing contracts follow the traditional format approved by MLS. When implemented, according to the FTC, these restrictions prevented Exclusive Agency Listings from being displayed on a broad range of public Web sites, including Realtor.com and the MLS’s local wihomes.com site.  The consent order settling these charges prohibits MLS from adopting or enforcing any rules or policies that deny or limit the ability of its participants to enter into Exclusive Agency Listings, or any other lawful listing agreements, with property sellers.

In the Matter of West Penn Multi-List, Inc., Docket No. C-4247 (2009): Pittsburgh Area

The consent order prohibits Respondent, the only MLS in the Pittsburgh area, from adopting or enforcing any rules or policies that limit publication and marketing of the listing of sellers’ properties based solely on the terms of the seller’s listing contract with the real estate broker.  In particular, the West Penn, with its 6800 members, is barred from refusing to make available for viewing on popular Internet Web sites any type of listing other than the traditional full-service style of real estate broker listing agreement, which is typically associated with a non-discounted commission.  The FTC alleged these restrictions favored traditional full-service brokerage agreements, in which a property owner appoints a real estate broker for a set period of time as an exclusive agent to sell the property, and agrees to pay the listing broker a commission if and when the property is sold.  The restrictions effectively blocked brokers from offering an alternative form of listing agreement, which could be used by home sellers who do not want to pay for the full range of brokerage services.  The FTC charged that these rules illegally restrained trade and harmed competition

In the Matter of MiRealSource, Inc., Docket No. 9321 (2007): Southeastern Michigan

The consent order prohibits the respondent, organized by competing real estate brokers, from restraining competition in real estate brokerage services through the operation of its multiple listing service or “MLS.” The consent order settles charges filed by the Commission in 2006 that the respondent violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by adopting several MLS policies intended to stifle competition from real estate brokers using alternative business models to provide brokerage services. These included: (1) a policy excluding certain non-traditional residential real estate listings entirely from the MLS; (2) a policy limiting the publication of certain residential real estate listings on popular real estate web sites; (3) a policy requiring a listing broker to perform a minimum set of services; (4) a policy requiring each MLS member to have an office in the state of Michigan; (5) a policy restricting how and where home sellers could advertise and market their homes; and (6) a policy restricting MLS listing information from being searched on public web sites alongside listing information from other sources. The consent order prohibits such conduct and prohibits the respondent from adopting or enforcing any other unjustified rules or policies that deny the services of the MLS to lawful but non-traditional listings in any way that such services are not denied to traditional property listings.

In the Matter of Realcomp II Ltd., Docket No. 9320 (2006): Southeastern Michigan

This contested complaint charges the respondent, organized by groups of competing real estate brokers, with restraining competition in real estate brokerage services through the operation of its multiple listing service or “MLS,” which is the largest in the State of Michigan. The complaint charges that the respondent violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by adopting MLS policies intended to stifle competition from real estate brokers using alternative business models to provide brokerage services. These are (1) a policy to feed MLS information to publicly accessible internet sites about certain properties, but not others, based solely on the terms of the listing contract entered into by the property seller with his or her real estate broker; and (2) a policy that the MLS search screen used by participating MLS members defaults to traditional Exclusive Right to Sell Listings. The complaint seeks entry of an order that prohibits such conduct and prohibits the respondent from adopting or enforcing any other unjustified rules or policies that deny the services of the MLS to lawful but non-traditional listings in any way that such services are not denied to traditional property listings.

In the Matter of Information and Real Estate Services, LLC, Docket No. C-4179 (2006): Northern Colorado including Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, and Loveland/Berthoud

The consent order prohibits the respondent, organized by groups of competing real estate brokers, from restraining competition in real estate brokerage services through the operation of its multiple listing service or “MLS.” The consent order settles charges that the respondent violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by adopting a policy to feed MLS information to publicly accessible internet sites about certain properties, but not others, based solely on the terms of the listing contract entered into by the property seller with his or her real estate broker. This policy prevented properties with non-traditional forms of listing contracts from being displayed on a broad range of public web sites. The consent order prohibits the respondent from adopting or enforcing any unjustified rules or policies that deny the services of the MLS to lawful but non-traditional listings in any way that such services are not denied to traditional property listings

In the Matter of Northern New England Real Estate Network, Inc., Docket No. C-4175 (2006): New Hampshire and some surrounding areas

The consent order prohibits the respondent, organized by groups of competing real estate brokers, from restraining competition in real estate brokerage services through the operation of its multiple listing service or “MLS.” The consent order settles charges that the respondent violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by adopting a policy to feed MLS information to publicly accessible internet sites about certain properties, but not others, based solely on the terms of the listing contract entered into by the property seller with his or her real estate broker. This policy prevented properties with non-traditional forms of listing contracts from being displayed on a broad range of public web sites. The consent order prohibits the respondent from adopting or enforcing any unjustified rules or policies that deny the services of the MLS to lawful but non-traditional listings in any way that such services are not denied to traditional property listings

In the Matter of Williamsburg Area Association of Realtors, Inc., Docket No. C-4177 (2006): Williamsburg, Virginia

The consent order prohibits the respondent, a group of competing real estate brokers, from restraining competition in real estate brokerage services through the operation of its multiple listing service or “MLS.” The consent order settles charges that the respondent violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by adopting a policy to feed MLS information to publicly accessible internet sites about certain properties, but not others, based solely on the terms of the listing contract entered into by the property seller with his or her real estate broker. This policy indicated that properties with non-traditional forms of listing contracts would not be displayed on a broad range of public web sites. The consent order prohibits the respondent from adopting or enforcing any unjustified rules or policies that deny the services of the MLS to lawful but non-traditional listings in any way that such services are not denied to traditional property listings

In the Matter of Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, Inc., Docket N. C-4178 (2006): Green Bay, Appleton, Oshkosh, and Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and the surrounding counties

The consent order prohibits the respondent, a group of competing real estate brokers, from restraining competition in real estate brokerage services through the operation of its multiple listing service or “MLS.” The consent order settles charges that the respondent violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by adopting a policy to feed MLS information to publicly accessible internet sites about certain properties, but not others, based solely on the terms of the listing contract entered into by the property seller with his or her real estate broker. This policy prevented properties with non-traditional forms of listing contracts from being displayed on a broad range of public web sites. The consent order prohibits the respondent from adopting or enforcing any unjustified rules or policies that deny the services of the MLS to lawful but non-traditional listings in any way that such services are not denied to traditional property listings

In the Matter of Monmouth County Association of Realtors; Docket No. C-4176 (2006): Monmouth and Ocean Counties, New Jersey

The consent order prohibits the respondent, a group of competing real estate brokers, from restraining competition in real estate brokerage services through the operation of its multiple listing service or “MLS.” The consent order settles charges that the respondent violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by adopting a policy to feed MLS information to publicly accessible internet sites about certain properties, but not others, based solely on the terms of the listing contract entered into by the property seller with his or her real estate broker. This policy prevented properties with non-traditional forms of listing contracts from being displayed on a broad range of public web sites. The consent order prohibits the respondent from adopting or enforcing any unjustified rules or policies that deny the services of the MLS to lawful but non-traditional listings in any way that such services are not denied to traditional property listings

In the Matter of Austin Board of Realtors, Docket No. C-4167 (2006): Austin, Texas

The consent order prohibits ABOR from adopting or enforcing any policy to deny, restrict, or interfere with the ability of its members or ACTRIS participants to enter into Exclusive Agency Listings or other lawful agreements with property sellers. ABOR is prohibited from preventing its members or ACTRIS participants from: (1) offering or accepting Exclusive Agency Listings or other lawful listing agreements; (2) cooperating with listings brokers or agents that offer or accept Exclusive Agency Listings or other lawful listing agreements; or (3) publishing Exclusive Agency Listings or other lawful listing agreements on Web sites otherwise approved to use ACTRIS information. The order also bars ABOR from denying or restricting the services of the ACTRIS to Exclusive Agency Listings or other lawful listings in any way that such services are not denied or restricted to Exclusive Right to Sell Listings; or treating Exclusive Agency Listings – or any other lawful listings – in a less advantageous manner than Exclusive Right to Sell Listings.

In the Matter of Puget Sound Multiple Listing Association, Docket No. C-3300 (1990): Seattle metropolitan area, Washington

This consent order prohibits, among other things, a Washington state multiple listing service from refusing to publish exclusive agency or listings containing reserve clauses; from restricting the solicitation of homeowners with current listings for future business; and from suggesting or fixing any commission split or other fees between any listing broker and any selling broker. In addition, the order requires respondent to distribute a statement describing the provisions of the order to all its members.

In the Matter of Port Washington Real Estate Board, Inc., Docket No. C-3227, 120 F.T.C. 882 (1995): Port Washington, New York

This consent order prohibits, among other things, a New York brokerage service from restricting the use of exclusive agency listings, fixing commission splits between listing and selling brokers, restricting or prohibiting members from holding open houses or using “For Sale” signs, restricting brokers from advertising free services to property owners, and excluding from memberships brokers who do no operate a full-time office in the territory served by the Board’s multiple listing service.

In the Matter of United Real Estate Brokers of Rockland, Ltd., Docket No. C-3461, 116 F.T.C. 972 (1993): Rockland County, New York

This consent order prohibits, among other things, the New York provider of real estate brokerage services from restricting exclusive-agency listings; restricting brokers from soliciting homeowners with current listings for future business; interfering with the cancellation of a listing; and excluding from membership brokers who do not operate a full-time office, or maintain an office in Rockland County, or who are not residents of New York state.

In the Matter of American Industrial Real Estate Association, Docket No. C-3449, 116 F.T.C. 704 (1993): greater metropolitan Los Angeles area, California

This consent order prohibits, among other things, a Los Angeles area multiple listing service (“MLS”) specializing in industrial properties from conditioning broker membership in the MLS or being primarily engaged in industrial real estate brokerage, or on the amount of industrial real estate experience the brokers have, or on the dollar volume of their business. In addition, the agreement prohibits the respondents from restricting any broker’s offering or accepting any exclusive agency listing, or requiring disclosure of commissions that deviate from normal commission rates.

In the Matter of Realty Computer Associates, Inc., Docket No. C-3227, 115 F.T.C. 968 (1992): Clay and Platte counties, Missouri, and surroundings

Realty Computer agreed not to limit certain business practices of its member brokers. Realty Computer provides computerized multiple listings of available real estate properties in Clay and Platte Counties, Missouri to member real estate brokers. According to the complaint issued with the consent order, Computer Listing Service conspired with its members to refuse to publish exclusive agency listings that allow homeowners to waive all commissions or pay a reduced commission whenever homeowners sell their properties without the assistance of a broker. The complaint further alleged that Computer Listing Service required its members to engage in real estate brokerage full time and also to maintain a real estate office in the Clay and Platte County service area. Finally, the complaint alleged that the firm’s restrictions on the delivery of real estate brokerage services and membership requirements have reduced consumers’ ability to negotiate different agreements that facilitate the sale of residential property and have suppressed competition from part-time brokers located outside the Computer Listing Service area.

In the Matter of Florence Multiple Listing Service, Inc., Docket No. C-3228, 110 F.T.C. 493 (1992): Florence and Darlington counties, South Carolina

Florence Multiple Listing Service, Inc. agreed to settle charges that it restrained competition among residential real estate brokers by restricting membership. The complaint accompanying the consent agreement alleged that the service told prospective members that as conditions of membership, they must own a real estate business for at least six months before application, agree not to join another multiple listing service, agree not to compete with Florence, and are subject to a two-thirds vote of acceptance by the existing membership. It was charged that Florence's actions limited consumers' ability to choose among a variety of firms competing over price, terms and services and limited competition.

In the Matter of Bellingham-Whatcom County Multiple Listing Bureau, Docket No. C-3299 (1990): Bellingham, Washington, area and surroundings

This consent order prohibits, among other things, a Washington state multiple listing service from refusing to publish exclusive agency or conditional listings or listings containing reserve clauses; from restricting the solicitation of homeowners with current listing for future business; and from suggesting or fixing any commission split or other fees between any listing broker and any selling broker. In addition, the order requires respondent to distribute a statement describing the provisions of the order to all its members.

In the Matter of Metro MLS, Inc., Docket No. C-3286, 115 F.T.C. 305 (1990): the cities of Virginia Beach and Norfolk and parts of the city of Chesapeake, Virginia

Metro MLS, Inc., agreed not to restrict or limit the publication of exclusive agency listings on its multiple listing service. The complaint accompanying the consent agreement charged that Metro MLS of Virginia Beach, Virginia restrained competition by refusing to publish listings that would allow the seller to eliminate or reduce the commission usually paid to the real estate broker for the sale. The order allows Metro to identify a property listing on its multiple listing service as one granting an exclusive agency.

In the Matter of Multiple Listing Service Mid County, Inc., Docket No. C-3227, 110 F.T.C. 482 (1988): Brooklyn, New York

Multiple Listing Service Mid County, Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, agreed to end various practices that have allegedly restrained price and service competition among residential real estate brokers. Under the agreement, Mid County is prohibited from requiring that any applicant or member operate a full-time office, fixing any division of commission between selling and listing brokers, adopting policies for exclusive agency listings, requiring members to inform Mid County of the commission agreed to between a listing broker and a homeowner, and adopting policies that delay the solicitation of a listing agreement.

In the Matter of Orange County Board of Realtors, Inc., Docket No. C-3162, 106 F.T.C. 88 (1985): Orange County, New York

The Orange County Board of Realtors, Inc. agreed to include listings in its multiple listing service that allow property owners and brokers to enter into contracts permitting owners to pay either a reduced commission or no commission at all if the owner locates the buyer independent of the appointed broker. Such contracts are called exclusive agency listings. The complaint accompanying the consent alleged that the board and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Multiple Listing Service of the Orange County Board of Realtors, Inc., restrained competition among its members by restricting its multiple listing service to listings giving its members exclusive rights to sell the properties. Contracts accepted under the exclusive right to sell enable the broker, appointed by the property owner, to act as the exclusive agent for the sale of residential property and to receive an agreed commission from the property owner regardless of whether the property is sold by the broker, the owner, or some other person. Under terms of the order, the board and its MLS are prohibited from interfering with a broker's acceptance of any exclusive agency listing and may not to publish the listing in their multiple listing service. In addition, the two organizations are required to publish exclusive agency listings in the same manner and category as exclusive right to sell listings.

In the Matter of Multiple Listing Service of the Greater Michigan City Area, Inc., Docket No. C-3163, 106 F.T.C. 95 (1985): LaPorte County, Indiana

Under terms of a revised consent agreement, the Multiple Listing Service of the Greater Michigan City Area, Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana, is required to publish exclusive agency listings. The consent settled charges that the Multiple Listing Service restrained competition in LaPorte County, Indiana, by interfering with its member-real estate brokers' participation in truthful comparative advertising of commission fees and practices. After the Commission received and considered public comments, it voted to revise its proposed complaint and include new provisions in a provisional consent agreement that had previously been published for public comment; the new provision requires the Multiple Listing Service to include both exclusive right to sell and exclusive agency listings on its property listings. The revised complaint included allegations that the Multiple Listing Service also reduced competition among brokers and between brokers and sellers of real property in LaPorte County by continuing to publish exclusive agency listings on its multiple listing service. Exclusive right to sell contracts allow the real estate broker to receive a commission on the sale of real property regardless of who sells the property.