National Association of Realtors - NAR and Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Systems

NAR and Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Systems

The NAR governs the hundreds of local Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) which are the information exchanges used across the nation by real estate brokers. (However, there are many MLSs that are independent of NAR, although membership is typically limited to licensed brokers and their agents; MLSPIN is an example of one of the larger independent MLSs in North America.)

Through a complicated arrangement, NAR sets the policies for most of the Multiple Listings Services, and in the late 1990s, with the growth of the Internet, NAR evolved regulations allowing Internet Data Exchanges (IDX) whereby brokers would allow a portion of their data to be seen on the Internet via brokers' or agents' websites and Virtual Office Websites (VOW) which required potential buyers to register to obtain information.

These policies allowed participants—whether they were individual one-person brokers or large regional companies—to limit access to some or all of the MLS data by individual brokers (whether they were brokers operating solely on the Internet or local competitors). In 2005, this prompted the Department of Justice to file an antitrust lawsuit against NAR alleging its MLS rules in regard to these types of limitations on the display of data were the product of a conspiracy to restrain trade by excluding brokers who used the Internet to operate differently from traditional brick-and-mortar brokers. (For a description of the DOJ action, see Antitrust Case filings for US v. National Association of Realtors.) Meanwhile various real estate trends such as expanded consumer access and the Internet are consolidating existing local MLS organizations into larger and more statewide or regional MLS systems, such as in California and Virginia/Maryland/Washington DC's Metropolitan Regional Information Systems.

In response to the case, NAR had proposed setting up a single Internet Listing Display system which would not allow participants to exclude individual brokers (whether of a bricks-and-mortar type or solely internet-based) but require a blanket opting out of display on all other brokers' sites. This system became the IDX system. Although IDX allows the public to view MLS listings, it still requires the listing brokerage information to be placed on the listing every place it appears (brokers legally "own" the listings of their brokerage), to prevent misrepresentation of the listing information, and to place accountability for the information on the broker as the law dictates.

The antitrust lawsuit was settled in May 2008. The agreement mandates that all Multiple Listing Service systems allow access to Internet-based competitors. The NAR will be required to treat online brokers the same as traditional brokers and cannot exclude them from membership because they do not have a traditional business model. The NAR admitted no wrongdoing, and it paid neither fines nor damages as part of the deal. The settlement will not be official until a federal judge formally approves it, most likely in 2008. While the general counsel of the NAR believes that the settlement will have no effect on the commission paid by the general public, a business professor at Western Michigan University predicted that the increased competition would cause a 25 to 50 percent decrease in commissions.

Another major anticompetitive practice is supported (indirectly) by various state laws which prohibit the "sharing" of commissions with unlicensed individuals. In broad interpretations, this is deemed to prevent a buyers' agent from providing a credit to his or her buyers from commissions received. Currently, there are 10 states where real estate agents and brokers are barred from offering homebuyers or sellers cash rebates or gifts of any kind with a cash value more than $25. Various Realtors in such states have successfully contested this interpretation in states which now allow the practice (notably, Patrick Lea, a Realtor in Ohio, and numerous agents in Kentucky). The Kentucky case was ultimately tried with the United States Department of Justice as the plaintiff and the Kentucky Real Estate Commission as the defendant.