Syndicated post from InmanNews.
Source link
As Compass cited determinations made by a court in the PLS’ lawsuit against NAR years ago in support of its cause, NWMLS called the brokerage’s legal arguments “nonsensical.”
Real estate is changing fast, and so must you. Inman Connect San Diego is where you turn uncertainty into strategy — with real talk, real tools and the connections that matter. If you’re serious about staying ahead of the game, this is where you need to be. Register now!
Against the backdrop of an industry-wide debate over how listings are displayed, Compass and Northwest MLS spent this week trading bards with each other in legal filings.
On Monday, Compass — which sued NWMLS in April — called the Washington-based multiple listing service a “monopoly” that controls how Seattle-area homes are sold, “blocking consumer choice and broker competition, and forcing homesellers and their brokers to market their homes through NWMLS.”
Among other things, Compass’ filing zeroed in on a 1983 report by the Federal Trade Commission known as the “Butters Report.” The report cites a National Association of Realtors (NAR) policy that “requires that an MLS not prohibit or discourage a member from accepting a listing from a seller preferring to give an ‘office exclusive,’” the filing states, which protects consumers and competition from “anticompetitive mandatory submission rules.”
In ThePLS.com’s 2020 antitrust lawsuit against NAR, a court determined that a group could be categorized as an anticompetitive boycott if the group is “coercing a competitor’s suppliers to sell to that competitor only on ‘unfavorable terms.’”
Compass is now arguing that NWMLS’s policies constitute as an anticompetitive boycott.
While the two companies await a pause in discovery as the court decides whether or not to let Compass’ claims move forward, NWMLS responded to the brokerage on Thursday, alleging that the firm’s claims “def[y] logic.”
The MLS argued that Compass had misinterpreted federal rules and was making procedural errors, and that a stay in discovery should be upheld by the court.
“Compass’ opposition is misplaced,” NWMLS said in its reply. “As a threshold matter, Compass’ attempt to characterize NWMLS’s motion to stay as a motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 34 at 1), is nonsensical.”
“Compass’ attempt to contort the Rules of Civil Procedure to try to leverage the standard for reconsideration is baseless, disingenuous, and should be rejected,” the filing continued.
