Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
II'm pretty sure that WA works the same way as Oregon in that you can't advertise another agent's listings, and the review, because it was written in the name of the brokerage, was construed to be an advertisement as defined by law.
SC does not allow an agent to advertise another agents listings w/o permission as well.
As much as you try to tangle Buyer and Seller agency into a messy stew of comingled interest, they are two distinctly different roles.
Despite concerns that some agents are less than exemplary, I see those roles carried out routinely by good people.
I know it's different roles, but it's heavily tilted towards the seller. Like always, I use RE agents for my transactions because I know there are good ones out there... It doesn't change the fact that I will question and poke holes in existing process and policy. We should never succumb to something because it's the "way it was always done" or "this is how we do it" - It can always be made better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
In Oregon the Sweet Digs reviews would have been against the law. I think it is the same in Washington. The real estate agencies typically only investigate when a complaint is filed. In the case of the Sweet Digs reviews the complaint was filed with the MLS directly and not with the real estate agency.
I don't think we have any Washington agents on here to confirm, but I'm pretty sure that WA works the same way as Oregon in that you can't advertise another agent's listings, and the review, because it was written in the name of the brokerage, was construed to be an advertisement as defined by law.
Redfin backed down because they were going to lose MLS access... Which is simply a matter of a need to do business. The MLS monopoly is what won the day for them (as it typically does). I don't see how you can simply state what Sweet Digs was doing was "against the law". That's flippantly dismissing it when it would have been very interesting to see a true legal battle over the actual laws. They probably could have made some tweaks or changes, but still keep it in the end.
Redfin backed down because they were going to lose MLS access... Which is simply a matter of a need to do business. The MLS monopoly is what won the day for them (as it typically does). I don't see how you can simply state what Sweet Digs was doing was "against the law". That's flippantly dismissing it when it would have been very interesting to see a true legal battle over the actual laws. They probably could have made some tweaks or changes, but still keep it in the end.
There wouldn't have been a lawsuit with the real estate agency. They investigate complaints and have the authority to take action. If they had revoked the license of the brokerage and the principal broker it would have shut it down. No lawsuit necessary.
I can simply state it because the laws are quite clear. I can't tweet another agent's listing. I can't link to it on Facebook. Unless, I have their permission. That is considered advertising another agent's listing. Just because you don't like the laws doesn't mean that they aren't enforceable and agents can ignore them. If we don't like them, then we agents need to work to change the laws. In the meantime we need to follow them.
If a complaint was filed against the principal broker, the real estate agency would have taken some kind of action. I think they chose to file the complaint with the MLS because the MLS acts faster than the real estate agency. It can take 12 months for a real estate agency investigation. Just because a complaint wasn't filed with the real estate agency doesn't mean it couldn't have been.
There wouldn't have been a lawsuit with the real estate agency. They investigate complaints and have the authority to take action. If they had revoked the license of the brokerage and the principal broker it would have shut it down. No lawsuit necessary.
I can simply state it because the laws are quite clear. I can't tweet another agent's listing. I can't link to it on Facebook. Unless, I have their permission. That is considered advertising another agent's listing. Just because you don't like the laws doesn't mean that they aren't enforceable and agents can ignore them. If we don't like them, then we agents need to work to change the laws. In the meantime we need to follow them.
If a complaint was filed against the principal broker, the real estate agency would have taken some kind of action. I think they chose to file the complaint with the MLS because the MLS acts faster than the real estate agency. It can take 12 months for a real estate agency investigation. Just because a complaint wasn't filed with the real estate agency doesn't mean it couldn't have been.
I assume this is applicable because Sweet Digs was directly connected to a licensed brokerage (Redfin)... So, as a private person I can tweet "123 Road Lane is for sale and the neighbor likes to play drums while he revs his Harley in the driveway", yes? I shouldn't be held to laws targeted to licensed RE brokers / agents.
I assume this is applicable because Sweet Digs was directly connected to a licensed brokerage (Redfin)... So, as a private person I can tweet "123 Road Lane is for sale and the neighbor likes to play drums while he revs his Harley in the driveway", yes? I shouldn't be held to laws targeted to licensed RE brokers / agents.
You can very likely spread any gossip you want to without jeopardizing your non-existent real estate license. The real estate commission and civil courts will not care if you are licensed or not.
I cannot spread crap without jeopardizing my very existent license, as consumers are protected at a higher level of accountability from people who are licensed for various business activities.
... So, as a private person I can tweet "123 Road Lane is for sale and the neighbor likes to play drums while he revs his Harley in the driveway", yes? I shouldn't be held to laws targeted to licensed RE brokers / agents.
Yes, you could as long as your intent was not to facilitate the sale and collect a commission as an unlicensed agent. As hinted by Mike, your liability may be in civil complaints depending on the information contained in your "advertising".
You can very likely spread any gossip you want to without jeopardizing your non-existent real estate license. The real estate commission and civil courts will not care if you are licensed or not.
I cannot spread crap without jeopardizing my very existent license, as consumers are protected at a higher level of accountability from people who are licensed for various business activities.
or as in Redfin's case - you can't be seen to facilitate the spreading of said crap. lol
Since Sweet Digs was killed I have always wondered why some private web site couldn't host "reviews" in an open format - like the sites you can find for rating contractors, etc.
I assume this is applicable because Sweet Digs was directly connected to a licensed brokerage (Redfin)...
Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid
So, as a private person I can tweet "123 Road Lane is for sale and the neighbor likes to play drums while he revs his Harley in the driveway", yes? I shouldn't be held to laws targeted to licensed RE brokers / agents.
Generally speaking yes, but as others have pointed out you have to be sure that you aren't attempting to facilitate the sale of a property as then you would be practicing real estate without a license which is a civil fine, AND you'd have to be careful of libel issues. Free speech is for opinions and facts. So if the neighbor of 123 moves away, but you leave up that comment and cause damages to the seller of 123 because everyone thinks a jerk lives next door, you might not be protected under free speech any more because what you said isn't true.
I think the liability issues for a private individual would probably be too great for them to want to tackle a house review site as a business model.
Quick Disclosure: I was in the mortgage industry for over 15 yrs and recently started working as an assistant to a Realtor. I have been licensed for many years, but only to enable me to do a broader range of duties for my agent (just don't have the "sales" gene).
MikeJaquish, Silverfall and middle-aged-mom: You are all extremely knowledgable and I respect your points of view. However, I have read through this thread and find it disheartening. You do not seem to trust the general public. Yes, a nasty neighbor could post something unwarranted, but the seller's family could jump on and post nothing but positive comments. Either way, you have to at least trust that anyone buying is smart enough to figure that out for themselves. As far as I can tell: You feel I should only see what you determine is the right information for me to see based on what another group of people told you I should be allowed to see - and all of this filtering is necessary because you assume I am not sophisticated/educated/savvy enough to understand it for myself. That is frustrating.
PS & 2nd Disclosure: Sorry for my rant. Just seems like that government increasingly does the same sort of thing and I hate to find out it exists in other areas of my life also.
Boy, Ol' Austin-Willy participated in a LOT of locked threads...
I miss him because he made me think a little harder than usual...
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 07-07-2011 at 01:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bueller? Bueller?
