Petition to NAR
Rescind New NAR Code of Ethics Rule for Use of the Term MLS or Multiple Listing Service on Member Websites
Look up your NRDS ID here
The Petition
We, the undersigned, petition for the revocation of the new rule change to the NAR Code of Ethics governing the use of the term MLS or Multiple Listing Service by members on their websites. The NAR Board and the Executive Committee should repeal this new rule change and allow its members to compete with non-member users of the terms on the internet on a level playing field.
* You, as a signator, acknowledge and agree that you sign this petition with your own free will and that you have not been coerced to sign this petition in any way.
** Signatures on this petition can only be used for this petition.
*** Signatures without a valid NRDS ID will not be counted. Please make your voice heard and type carefully.
After you have added your name to this petition an e-mail will be sent to the given address to confirm your signature. Please make sure that your e-mail address is correct or you will not receive this e-mail and your name will not be counted.
Last 150 signatories
Doug LasleyCartee Annette
John Werner
Nancy Werner
John Sabia
Marc Rasmussen
Cathy Russell
Steve Warren
William Long
Tim Burrell
Patrick Orr
Ryan Orr
Susan Zanzonico
Micki Stovall
Thomas Krajcirovic
George Milos
Mark Washburn
Laura Correll
Michael Fraley
Sibley Poland
Janie Shetter
Happy Huddleston
Sam Miller
Jeff Launiere
west tim
Stacey Matsuda
Jennifer Bowman
Rhodes Karen
Kathleen Holmes
Amanda Thompson
Nancy Alley
Sarah Rummage
Susan Cook
Lynda Martz
Becky Miner
Jason Deppen
Toni Dutton
Raymond \"Buzz\" Lucas
olga shurlow
Alfred Block
Demel Mcghee
Robert Masse
Vince Kleinknecht
Hank Roeters
Brian Duncan
Leisel Caldwell
Kathlene Costello
Dennis Hite
Kimberly Hite
Frederick Pickard
Dan Nappi
Josephine O\'Hare
Cindy Jasper
Tracy Johnson
David Halla
Kelle Bennefield
Melissa Tanner
Penny Alper
Eric Bramlett
nancy holt
Kyriakoulis Tsouprakos
Leslie Lightfoot
Jacqueline Hawley
Anthony Pomykala
Mitch Argon
Sally Hardman
chris holmen
Cathy Shaffer
Patrick Hallesy
Cadey Charfen
Bonita Cox
Kevin Kling
Lawrence Jensen
Arlene Simone
Kyle McLean
Karen Stefani
Aaron Dickinson
Scott Smith
Michelle DeRepentigny
Thomas Mason
David J. Weiner
Russell Shaw
Sarah Ruzicka
Nancy Sullivan
Joyce Banovz
Jamie Blackorby
Daniela Cambie
Michael Gross
Brenda Hancock
Charlotte Abuhuzaimah
Burel Schmisseur
Kris Dempsey
Jack Starnes
Lewis Sandi
Jennifer Malottki
Roger Reiff
Kristina Pratt
Amy Sujanani
Dawn Kennedy
Rich Anderson
MARK ANDERSON
Jen Teske
Bob Ashauer
Tammy Owens
Brad Wallace
Kevin Duffy
Claire Bastien
Dustin Dempsey
Mary Gowenlock
Rick Belben
Joann Belben
Tni LeBlanc
Carolyn Gjerde-Tu
Robert Mitchell
Darcy Cannon
Betsy Bowman
Ronald Jensrud
Mary Power Morris
Bernard Gibbons
Margery Stern
Jerri Stracener
Velda Miller
Dan Grammatica
Lee Hannibal
Betty Henderson
Susan Fennell
Timothy Fennell
Lee Bowman
Steven Burnett
Rick Snow
Rob Lang
Candice A Donofrio
Keith Byrd
Andrew Hartanov
Leanne Watkins
Jeff Beck
Drick Ward
Jeanne Veilleux
Patricia Halpin
Clifford McDaniel
Robin Turner
Jay Thompson
Candace Spencer
Renee Adelmann
Amy Roberson
Karen Rice
Gene Carey
Charlotte Mozader
Perry Thomas
Bradley Long
Topics: Uncategorized |
December 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
NAR Needs to focus on things that will help us as Realtors and stop trying to do stuff that does not need to be done.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
It would be a shame for NAR to allow non-members gain these huge advantages of their own membership.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
James,
Are you going to sign?
December 4th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I thought I did. I will do it again.
Jim
December 4th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
it gives me this message “Sorry, someone has already attempted to sign the petition using this e-mail address. “
December 4th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Hey Ryan please delete my last comment….wrong website. Thanks again for setting this up.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I was in attendance at NAR when this passed! I was shocked and in disbelief over this and other issues that were discussed. The MLS leadership at NAR are simply out of touch and out of date with technology and real estate. I would encourage newer NAR members to get involved now so that new, fresh ideas have a chance to be heard and debated.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Forrest,
Please let us know what else was talked about. I still cannot believe they passed this.
Make sure you confirm your email address to have your vote count…
What was the strongest argument that was made for its passage?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
It would be great if a list of the members of the MLS leadership group could be given out so that real Realtors could pass on their thoughts to these people.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
This is absolutely outrageous.
Since NAR has no control over non members, anyone else can use the “MLS” term with impunity.
Perfect case in point: http://www.mlsonline.com. Realtors & real estate licensees now on this website will remain unaffected by anything NAR can do.
I understand that it could be misleading to let or lead consumers to think they’re searching the actual MLS but this rule is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to quote an old saying.
Bad decision
December 8th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Jim this is exactly what I think will happen with non-members benefiting by NAR tying realtors hands behind their backs.
NAR seems to have lost their minds on this one. What are they going to do next not allow us to have websites for some bizarre reason? Its almost as if the FSBO sites have gotten inside NAR and are passing rules to help themselves.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Hi Jerry,
I couldn’t agree with you more.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:15 am
Absolutely beyond absurd. Whose side is the NAR on? Certainly not their paying members!!!
December 31st, 2007 at 9:16 am
BTW, how many signatures have you gotten so far?
December 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am
34. I think we need a few more 0’s behind that number…
January 4th, 2008 at 8:27 am
You’ve got to be kidding… What in God’s name are they thinking of. We pay a lot of money each year to continue our membership and use the MLS. To prohibit us from having a link on our WEB SITES stating “SEARCH THE MLS” is ridiculous. I just don’t believe that rational minds did this.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:38 am
It is mis leading to say “Search the MLS” if all you are doing is going to a IDX or VOW site. If this would of happened 20 years ago The REALTORS our business would be better off. If you say search the MLS and you aren’t isnt that wrong??
January 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Tari,
How on earth do you figure? I have an MLS data feed of all of the active listings on my website the same as the public access to the local mls website has. If they can use the term, why can’t we?
It’s called anti-competitive.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I agree 100% with Ryan.
When Realtor.com stops displaying listings from non-Realtors, and my local board’s public site stops using “MLS” in the domain name of their public (IDX) site and ALL of the local association board and committee members stop using MLS in their domain names, titles and meta tags then I will consider complying, until then it is pure hypocrisy.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I hate to say it but until we stop allowing the people without any real business and technology experience to be on NAR’s board, all we are going to get is dumb business decisions, and NAR will keep getting their butts sued off as well. NAR board members should have to be elected by vote of all of the NAR members. They should have to state who they are, what their experience is, and what qualifies them to serve on what ever committee they are wanting to serve on.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Just saw that this got some play on Inman news and wanted to add my support for this petition. If non NAR members can use the term MLS than members should have that same right.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
NAR is self destructing itself, and taking us with them, with the DOJ lawsuits, bad press to the general public, now MLS crap it never ends and the final decision isn’t not in as of yet.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I am curious as to why this was enacted now. Has the public really been misled? Are buyers really complaining to NAR? Are the violators not giving the customers what they requested. Does anyone know a customer that was mislead? Will this new adoption of the professional standards fix this problem or will it just give the lead aggrigators new marketing avenues.
January 12th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I get it! Let’s all start paying referal fees to the future national data bases run by yahoo, google, zillo, turia, etc for every client contact we make in the future.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
if non members don’t have to pay dues and still get to use the term mls,sign me up.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Log onto Yahoo Real Estate, do a search for Edwardsville, IL 62025. You will “get a less than truthful picture” when you look at the “picture” of the house. “The Picture” has a watermark of
“SIR/MLS” Per NAR & sir/mls governors “that is Less than a TRUE PICTURE” I feel so sorry for all those “mislead” consumers out there…
brad wallace
January 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
While doing research for “keyword rankings”
“MLS Realty” & “MLS Reality” & “Edwardsville Homes For Sale” … Even though MLS Reality was miss-spelled, “Edwardsville Homes For Sale came in last…
bradwallace
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Honestly - why tie our hands even further?
February 5th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Wow Ryan, your getting a little traction with this. I really wish there were more avenues to put it to the members of the National Association of REALTORS (NAR) committee who voted for this. Even better would be for some REALTOR who does a large amount of business to sue NAR and win for restriction of trade.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
If NAR was smart they would restrict non members from saying search the MLS. But allow us dues paying members to use the term. They have everything backwards. By the way thanks Ryan for bringing attention to this.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Stopping non members would be the logical choice! Please call your local NAR rep and let them know. I think most people think like us but the elected people that made this amendment we asleep when they voted for this limitation.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I was invovled with a lawsuit with NorthstarMLS.com in the Twin Cities. We settled because of the cost of the lawsuit. Our national leaders new to trademark a name and protect it. MLS is trademarked by Major League Soccer. Homegain.com Lendingtree.com and many other non Realtor organizations are using MLS to direct leads to us for a price. Our NAR is doing nothing with their rules but to empower non members. A very sad state when your leadership is out to destroy its membership. I heard in Chicago area agents got the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union involved to stop their ruling. I hope on a national basis this happens so that the NorthstarMLS.com rule 13 is struck down.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
As already stated, NAR does not own the rights to MLS. Therefore, they CAN NOT stop anyone, but its own members from using it. By stopping us and forcing us to give up high ranking URL’s, the traffic will be re-directed to these Non Member sites and they will in turn sell OUR OWN leads back to us at a price.
Yes it would be logical to stop Non Members from using the term, but again….THEY CAN’T. So why stop us?
February 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I have just been threatened with ethics violations if I don’t remove several of my MLS websites. I am planning a class action suit with some fellow Realtors to stop this restriction of trade.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
The sad thing is, the people making this ruling are supposed to have our best interests at hand?
February 13th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Information is power and NAR has relinquished that “power” in to the hands of dot.com businesses and the public at very little, if any, cost to them. In an effort to compete, NAR and other Realtor organizations undermine our value to the public. Rather than protecting our tools of the trade, NAR has given it a way and we (get to) pay for it.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Why should we pay the HomeGain’s of the world to Chauffer us on MLS Street when we are perfectly capable of driving there ourselves? Only NAR is the traffic cop that keeps us from driving there. By barring us, NAR is only allowing NON-Realtors to sell real estate (or more specifically – US!) there!!!! Does THAT make sense???
What Trade Association keeps their own kind from setting up shop where their market and “focused” customers are?? Currently, only NAR!! Let’s get that changed!!
February 19th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Non-Realtor sites, who do not abide by NAR rules, will OWN “MLS” search term traffic in the near future if NAR continues to restrain fair competition.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Yeah .. it’s ridiculous! I say .. if you pay your dues and if your site has search access, or capabilities, tied to your local MLS you should be allowed to have MLS in your site name.
Even if your site doesn’t have an MLS search on it, we ALL search and list property on the MLS daily, so we should ALL be allowed to use MLS in a web name if we wanted to. Why is the NAR making a “not so great market” even worse for us!? Aren’t we the ones making them money!? Don’t bite the hand that feeds you!
On another note .. as a friend of mine is experiencing .. I also think that outside resources and relatives that are not licensed (but helping a licensed friends or relatives) by complaining about other realtors sites are just trying to remove competition for them, and that is just not ethical either! What is NAR doing about that?? This business is referral and marketing based, so sorry if you are not good at it and others are!
I say as long as you have a disclaimer on your site that is prominently places for the public to see it should fine. I don’t think it is deceiving anyone if you are MLS capable for your client!
February 25th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I find it disturbing that I need to be wasting my time defending the technology I use to help people buy and sell homes, and especially defending myself against the organization that is supposed to be furthering our collective interests.
I have an ethics complaint that’s been filed against me with our local board. Regardless, I do not plan to take down any of my websites any time soon.
I am hopeful that our local association will be progressive enough to see the ridiculousness of this entire issue, and make the correct decision.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I think the far reaching implications of the use of the term MLS by non-NAR Members needs to be emphasized. Non-Members will include large well financed corporate interests who want to take over the real estate industry and put REALTORS and NAR out of business. Further, very few consumers believe that an MLS site is an actual MLS. Consumers know that this is merely a clone of the site just like yahoo and all other real estate search sites. I appreciate NAR’s efforts to keep REALTOR behavior professional but this is one that they truely need to reconsider.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I’m a member of the NorthStarMLS and a meber of the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors under a different company name now so I can continue to earn a living. I was one of the 4 companies in the settlement that Steve Westmark mentioned. I am the majority owner 80% and now I have been told I am no longer a grandfathered company. Here’s a copy of an email sent to me. Our site was and always has been in total compliance wtih the RMLS Rules and Regulations and Rule 13. I would welcome to join in any lawsuit. I also have contacted the ACLU and The Department of Justice. The ACLU told me there was noting they could do and since writing and speaking with the DOJ I have heard nothing from them. I hold Federally Registered Trademarks for TheMLSDirect and TheMLStoGo and own several other url’ with the term MLS in them.
Tracy – This will confirm our conversation Monday and your request for the RMLS position in writing. As you know, in 2006 the RMLS enacted Rule 13 prohibiting RMLS participants from using the term MLS or Multiple Listing Service in their company name, web address, and advertising. The purpose was to draw a clear delineation between what is and is not an MLS and to promote an accurate representation to the public.
Because there were 4 RMLS participants who were using the term MLS in their company name when the rule was enacted, the RMLS grandfathered those 4 participants, one of which was Patrick Trow, using The MLS Direct in Hopkins. The grandfather was specific in name and location. The intent was to prevent the further proliferation of the term and ensure that any new participants complied with the rule.
As I understand it, the participation of Patrick Trow and The MLS Direct in Hopkins was terminated, and you are asking if a new participation agreement may be submitted either by yourself or another using the company name The MLS Direct. Any new participation agreement must comply with all RMLS rules, including Rule 13. I believe this is consistent with the rules of the RMLS and the arbitration decision. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions or if I can help in any way.
Michael Bisping
Director, Customer Relations
Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc.
mbisping@NorthstarMLS.com
Voice: 651-251-3208
Fax: 651-251-3249
Tracy Johnson
REALTOR
Founder / President
The MLS Direct
Office 612-229-5750 (Direct)
February 25th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Alright… so the local board takes my money to give me access to the MLS, but now I can’t drive traffic to the website where I give people access to all of the homes on that same MLS. If as a member of NAR I am allowed to use the term Realtor, why can I not use the term MLS when I am a paying member of that group! I understand their denial if I gave the client something else; however my pages and many others truly give access to all of the homes listed on the MLS!!! I GOTTA WONDER WHO WROTE THIS CHECK OUT.. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WHO CASHED IT!
February 25th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Next petition I would like to see is with regards to the way Realtor.com does business. Every IDX MLS site I’ve seen, other then Realtor.com, puts all the pictures present in our MLS as part of a viewers online experience. Realtor.com charges for this minimum addition an exorbitant amount of money predicated on how many listings an agent has. I think Realtor.com should do for free what every other idx site does…. after all they are OUR trade organization, or am I mistaken?!
February 25th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Next petition I would like to see is with regards to the way Realtor.com does business. Every IDX MLS site I’ve seen, other then Realtor.com, puts all the pictures present in our MLS as part of a viewers online experience. Realtor.com charges for this minimum addition an exorbitant amount of money predicated on how many listings an agent has. I think Realtor.com should do for free what every other idx site do…. after all they are OUR trade organization, or am I mistaken?!
February 26th, 2008 at 5:01 am
The NAR should seriously reconsider this attempt to restrict the use of MLS in a domain in a realtors website and admit they have made a mistake before this leads to potentially damaging lawsuits which in the long run cost all involved a great deal of money.
The “nameless” realtor in Nashville has filed an ethics complaint with my realtor association and is causing me to spend a great deal of time and energy preparing a defense.
NorthWoodandLakesMLS.com is being used as the precedent when it comes to a realtor using the MLS letters in their URL. I have not been able to find any more information about this site or any images of the site so see how “misleading” it actually was.
I have a feeling that site did not represent an significant revenue source for the realtor that did own it and as a result he or she probably didn’t feel that is worth putting together an expensive legal team to seriously fight the ruling.
In my case, I am actually the team leader of the number 8 RE/MAX team in Tennessee and I have the livelihood of myself and my team members to protect. I will be fighting this ethics violation on a number of levels but first and foremost based on the fact that that the public is not stupid and they are fully aware that my site is not positioning itself as an official MLS but merely as a portal to search for homes. MLS in the public’s mind equates to homes listed for sale just as FSBO means homes for sale without being listed by a realtor.
The end result of this ruling will be that the NAR will become embroiled in legal battles that effectively taint the public’s perception of the realtor community as a professional organization. In fighting is always perceived as a weakness and is usually viewed with distain especially when the membership is seen to be fighting against a reactionary leadership.
NAR should convene an emergency meeting to review the intent and implications of the ethics code revision. Even the “nameless realtor” that is using this ruling to bring ethics complaints against realtors across the USA can see that the 3rd party lead generation companies stand to gain. Who knows, perhaps this is the intention of the nameless realtor, using the ruling to propel a new career as a 3rd party lead generator. Using an ethics ruling to enhance a personal competitive advantage to me is bigger of an ethics violation and needs to be addressed and would be deserving of loss of his or her realtor status.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:11 am
With so many MAJOR issues facing Realtors I feel once again NAR is making it more difficult to do our business. As a group I do not believe thay focus on our needs. Such as countering all the negative press we as realtors endure.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I just sent an email to my broker, Bryan Hedges, requesting him to tell as many Realtors as he can to sign the petition. There is definitely strength in numbers as we tackle this injustice together.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:07 am
So we create and follow a code of ethics which bars us to use “realtor” and “mls” the way we would want to in order to market/make a living. But, the big but, anyone else out there can do it who is not licensed or is a third party, for profit corporation—which would be making money off the very “terms” we pay for. Does not make much sense. We are dues paying members–we are REALTORS and we are the ones paying for the MLS–we should have every right to utilize those words to our benefit. So I guess I can’t make a website named: www.coffeebrewer.com since I am follow the code of ethics of the “coffee association”? Rediculous!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Great to see that this petition is gaining traction. I wonder, have you had any contact by NAR or any of its official leadership members??
February 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
For anyone who doesn’t know yet, the “fellow” Realtor that has been filing most, if not all, of these ethics complaints against Realtors is Art Hammond of Tennessee. It is also very likely he is the “anonymous” Realtor referred to in the Inman Article. Based on an article written about him elsewhere at http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2000/12/04/story1.html it would be reasonable to conclude that Art Hammond is exploiting the new NAR ruling, to his advantage, in hopes that those of us who can’t or won’t fight will simply terminate ownership of the MLS flavored domain we own. Do you realize how VALUABLE those domains are, and that someone else can just buy it immediately after we cancel the domain, for under $10? That someone could then harvest YOUR leads and sell them off. Coincidentally, that is EXACTLY the business model Art Hammond professess in the article above that HE wants to do - be a referral agent!! I don’t know about you, but that certainly implies to me that there is a sinister agenda behind Art Hammond, and he isn’t actually the Loyal Knight of NAR that he’d like everyone to believe he is.
Please, do NOT cancel your MLS domains! Guard them, protect them, and keep them! If we are strong enough, this Rule will be changed soon enough.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Mr. Pomykala,
1) I agree.
2) I have seen the same types: “Holier-than-thou” types, that if “just some truth was leaked out…” things would be different. No doubt, members are using this as a tool to damage the other agents… Be on the look-out, listen carefully for ANTI-TRUST violations… Document everything. When people “play-unfair” they usually “slip with the fleshly muscular organ in the mouth”…
Happens every time. It’s one thing to: Play the ethics card, handed down from NAR, but when they “take this into their own hands, promote their own agenda, is when they get into trouble…
Brad Wallace
Metro MLS Realty LLC
618-656-8282
February 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Tony Pomykala: I am not disagreeing with you, but would like to know if you have any other evidence to support your claim about the gentleman in Tennessee filing the ethics claims for his own benefit?
February 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for your efforts, Ryan. We appreciate you making this venue available to all REALTORS®.
Toni Dutton
Cinque Terre Realty
Bullhead City, AZ
928.234.2700
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Please control and discipline those Realtors who are blatantly unethical, not those who are clever enough to use good and effective marketing.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 am
Hello,
I just wanted to let everyone know that I have been able to make contact with a representative at the FTC who is currently reviewing the change in the NAR code of ethics in relation to a possible restraint of trade violation.
The more the actual working REALTORS pursue highlighting the inequality of the code of ethics revision, in terms of the impact it will have on their business, the better chance we have of forcing the NAR to revisit and review the full implications of the change for its members.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Hey Tony,
Let me confirm that Mr. Art Hammond of Nashville, Tennessee is indeed the “anonymous” (now formerly anonymous) Realtor quoted in the Inman article.
He has sent me and several of my Realtor buds all over the country, emails threatening to file ethics complaints against us because of our URLs.
I believe Mr. Hammond has his own agenda in filing all these ethics violations which, in my opinion, raise some questions about his ethics.
Additionally it is absolutely astounding how this rule change is being interpreted and mis-interpreted all over the county.
The follwing appeared in a local association’s newsletter: “As technology has expanded to cover new ways to reach a new audience, REALTORS® and licensees are legally required to have their license standing readily apparent, including in website addresses! This means that names of websites that are generic to an area, market or property are wrong. AND, website names that direct the consumer to a listing database that the licensee or REALTOR® does not own exclusively is illegal, such as “MurfreesboroMLS.com” or “TennesseeMLS.com”.”
Could anyone please tell me what the heck that says and means??
March 4th, 2008 at 11:26 am
If indeed Mr. Hammond is behind what you are saying, then why not start sounding the horn about him in some of your own blog posts, as well as informing your board as well as NAR of what he and people like him are doing?
As far as the web addresses and such, NAR is just plain wrong, and agents who are directly impacted by this should be presenting complaints of restraint of trade with the Department of Justice. It seems that NAR only really listens to them anymore.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
http://tinyurl.com/3bprlw
This group of Realtors is also against this new rule.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Realtor Magazine’s columnist “Mr Internet” suggested a domain name with CityMLS.com in an article he wrote in 2002. In fact, I think that is where I got the idea. Check it out at http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.nsf/pages/AskMrIn200202221?OpenDocument
March 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
If you guys are not willing to play by the rules, simply renounce your National Association of REALTORS membership. Either play by the rules or be punished.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I have also been summons by my Realtor Board on this issue.
My site has been up for going on 8 years without a complaint - untill a certain gentelman named in the threads, here on this site, decided to play judge and jury.
http://www.sandiego-mls.com
March 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I understand that “a person from Tennessee”
called my local BOR and wants to file a complaint against me… I do not know this persons name…
Brad Wallace
Metro MLS Realty LLC
Edwardsville, IL
March 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Brad,
I would review comment number 53
Gary
March 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
10 dollars to a doughnut the guy is Art Hammond from Nashville.
He has already filed against me and about 35 other Realtors all over the country.
Art has been a very busy boy.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Dear Mr. Tennessee,
I am also a member of Mainstreet Org. Of Realtors in Chicago IL. I am under Their GRANDFATHER Clause regarding the use Of MLS. Therefore in my opinion, I feel you would be wasting “my” time “giving me a hard time”
I have a Podcast from IAR, the ATTORNEY said in this posdcast “as long as MLS is in your COMPANY NAME you are conveying a CLEAR PICTURE.
Brad Wallace
Agent / Owner
Metro MLS Realty LLC.
PS: Give me a call sometime, I’d like a private conversation with you… and know who you are…
Have a very good day, I wish you the Very Best…
March 26th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
What happened Ryan, You must have removed a comment or two as now I am comment number 53.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Sorry everyone,
There were a couple of bad email address that were breaking bogging the system. I deleted their comments so now the numbers have changed. If anyone has any information that they feel would be worthy, we could add it as a blog post here instead of in the comments. Just reply in here or email me and we will see what we can do: ryan at ryanwardrealestate dot com
I will count the signatures and post them here tomorrow…
March 28th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
There are 265 signatures about 45 of which have not confirmed their email address. I’ll post a new entry updating the petiton.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I will sign the petition.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I kept meaning to do this and someone sent me an email about it today so here I am.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Most REALTORS® have no idea what they are doing online. Leave the tech stuff to the pros (not the e-pro’s either…lol). The NAR has no idea either, thats why they sold out to the now major sites. Those same sites are the ones ripping you off. REALTORS®, need less restrictions and more opportunity from independant programmers and web designers. Believe me, most programmers know more than all of the sites that sell nothing but trash and false leads combined. I see alot of changes for the NAR in the future due to competition.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:53 am
If those agents impacted by this absurd and subjective rule filed a class action, this issue would be resolved quite quickly.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
NAR’s mid year meetings are next week in Washington DC.
Is there any plans to present this petition and comments to the Professional Standards Committee that came up with the new rules???
May 11th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Possible amendments to Case Interpretation #12-20,
Misleading Use of “MLS” in URL on May 15th.
The proposed changes can be found at this page on realtor.org:
http://www.realtor.org/natmeet.nsf/pages/Jennife2008AgendaFB916?OpenDocument
This is taken from that document:
“The issue was whether the phrase “. . .the fact remained that a real–estate related URL that included the letters MLS would lead reasonable consumers to conclude that the website would an MLS’s, and not a broker’s website” is too broad, and whether that phrase would require hearing panels to find a violation of Article 12 any time a REALTOR’s URL uses “MLS” or “multiple listing service”, irrespective of whether the URL otherwise presents a true picture.
It was agreed that was not the Committee’s intent, but the Subcommittee also felt the words in the current case have potential to be read that way.”
It is clear from this document that the NAR did not intend case 12#20 to be used as a blanket prohibition of the use of MLS in a REALTORS URL.
The case is to be used by an ethics panel as a guideline in helping them determine if a REATOR’s site is deceptive and is intended to mislead the public into thinking that have access to the “official” MLS for that area.
The inclusion of disclaimers, the brokers contact information, pictures of the REALTOR themselves, content on the page to show that the REALTOR is an active REALTOR providing a service to the public etc, are all elements of the site that an ethics panel should consider in determining wether a site is designed to be intentionally deceptive and is attempting to pass itself off as the “official” local MLS board or is just another REALTOR controlled website providing a useful service for the public and source of business for that REALTOR.
Case 12#20 is only to be used a guideline by the ethics panel so as long as a the REALTORS site is presenting an honest and truthful picture there should not be a problem with a REALTOR being found to not have violated article 12 of the code of ethics.
Any realtor that currently has MLS in his or her URL should not just give up their domain if they are threatened with an ethics violation from another realtor. They should carefully re-examine their site and make sure it does present a true picture and is not deceptive or misleading.
http://www.NashvillesMLS.com has disclaimers, non deceptive content, brokerage contact information, is a REALTOR controlled website and I personally believe it does present a “true picture” to the home buying public.
I do believe the NAR is starting to listen to it’s members and sense will prevail so that a term used by the general public, in association with buying a home ie “search the MLS”, will be something that a REALTOR can still use and not have to give that right away to 3rd party company who will then sell the real estate leads back to the REALTORS that helped popularize the term MLS.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
@Jim NJ Blogger Says:
March 4th, 2008 at 11:26 am
If indeed Mr. Hammond is behind what you are saying, then why not start sounding the horn about him in some of your own blog posts, as well as informing your board as well as NAR of what he and people like him are doing?
Jim, this would be against another NAR guideline. We are forbidden from badmouthing another agent. However, simply stating that Mr. Harmond is the one who filed the complaint is permissible.
@Brain Piedmonet Says:
March 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
If you guys are not willing to play by the rules, simply renounce your National Association of REALTORS membership. Either play by the rules or be punished.
Brain, NAR is nothing without us. We Are NAR! When our elected officials make a mistake or push through a ruling that is against the majority opinion, we have a Duty to Fight and Change it. After all, this is still the USA!
If you are against us, make sure you earn enough money to pay dearly to those Non Realtors and Non Real Estate companies for all the leads that you help generate. That is what this ruling is doing.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:22 am
There is a new article today (5/22/08) about this issue. Everyone needs to comment in order to keep this debate alive.
http://www.inman.com/news/2008/05/21/debate-flares-over-mls-in-web-site-urls
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Let me get this straight NAR….in the monthly NAR publication “REALTOR” dated March 1, 2002, you suggested using…your city +MLS. Hard to believe? See it below in this artice..chart #1.
http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.nsf/pages/AskMrIn200202221?OpenDocument
So now in 2008, NAR now is threatening the realtor community for using “MLS”? NAR thinks they are GOD…please NAR…do something good for us…get out of our way.
Justin Case
July 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
To further illustrate how unfair this new ruling is you need to understand that ethics violations are typically enforced at the local board or association level.
Ethics hearings and the outcomes are confidential but you can apply some logical thinking to figure out what happened.
I know of two ethics proceedings that have already taken place and the “www.CityMLS.com” domains are still there. In another one, it’s now gone. You can draw your own conclusions from these results.
The outcome of the new rule is that it’s not only OK for non-Realtors to continue to use those magic letters “MLS” in a domain name but it’s also OK for some Realtors and not OK for other Realtors in other areas.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Justin, it appears that they’ve changed it to “listings.” on that document. Too bad you don’t have the original print magazine!
July 20th, 2008 at 11:03 am
@ Karen,
If this is the article that suggested using “mytownmls (dot) com” we do have the original on line and un changed. see REW thread: http://www.realestatewebmasters.com/showthread.php?t=20099&page=18 and the original article is preserved here:
http://www.outerbanks-real-estate.com/evidence.html
July 20th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ha! Yes, they changed the article linked in Jusin’s post; the chart is missing but they left the “alt text” giving credit to the owner of the chart!
“(Chart reprinted with permission from ePOWER! PRO)”
How nice of them to encourage us to use MLS and now after we build business on those domains they’ve decided it’s against the rules!
I bet it has something to do with the owners of REALTOR.COM and they’d like to purchase up all the domains for major areas that are CityMLS.com and the like. That makes sense…
July 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I find it reprehensible that NAR would go back and try to re-write history like that.
It was a great idea (Tip of the Month) at one time and a “quick, inexpensive way to supercharge your Web marketing and to generate additional online business with very little effort.”
Now it’s unethical, and underhanded.
R-i-g-h-t.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
I have my hearing date scheduled with our local Realtor Association, Hampton Roads REALTOR Association (HRRA), for August 13.
I have a fairly strong argument, as far as I’m concerned. The hearing surrounds my use and ownership of VirginiabeachMLS.net.
After a visitor enters their information, they’re taken to the actual complete MLS public access page.
VirginiaBeachMLS.net is my site….the actual public site of our MLS is HRMLS.com. At the very outset, which domain tells the visitor what they’re actually getting?
…and then…how can my use of VirginiaBeachMLS.net be unethical when they’re getting exactly what they think they’re getting?
I have quite a few more arguments as well. We’ll see what happens.
Regardless, I’m not going to take the sites down or discontinue using them.
Cheers!
Jody
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Jody,
shoot me an e-mail. You don’t have much time and your in for a shock.
just click on my name
September 30th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
any updates on this?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
None that I am aware of…
October 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Everytime I see a new website like this one (http://www.ConceptMLS.com/ run by non-Realtors I get made about this fiasco all over again.
And for the guy at www.VirginiaBeachMLS.net, it’s a crap shoot at a professional standards committee hearing; it can go either way because each board decides for themselves what’s right and wrong.
For instance I had www.KnoxvilleMLS.com and even though I had permission from both my board’s EO and NAR’s legal department (not in writing unfortunately) I was forced to remove it.
And not 200 miles away in Nashville, www.NashvillesMLS.com is just fine and dandy. In fact the President of their MLS said he didn’t find it misleading at all.
Go figure.
Bottom line here, Some Realtors can use domain names with MLS while others can not use the same thing.
And non-Realtors can use it any way they choose because NAR and local boards have no authority over them.
How fair is that?
April 21st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
A few of us know about this article (see comment #60), but did they change the part about the letters MLS at the bottom?
http://www.realtor.org/archives/askmrin200202221
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 am
If you mean ” has this article been adited to remove the author’s advice to use domains like mycityMLS.com” the answer is HELL YES.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 am
I believe a number of people, including REW have secured the original content as evidence for use in trials and hearings.