In the charges, Diaz claims that the policy is ‘an illegal group boycott’ that has ‘no legitimate justification’. He said that the result of the policy is “reduced consumer choice, artificial inflation of operating costs and market protection for alternative business models in real estate agents”.
The California Association of Realtors (Car), the Lodi Association of Realtors and the Central Valley Association of Realtors are also called defendants in the court case, just like five unknown “Doe” Die Diaz said he will mention when their identity is discovered.
Car refused to comment on Housing. The other defendants and representatives for Diaz could not be reached immediately.
The lawsuit states that many agents choose not to become brokers in remote areas such as Modesto, where the trade group offers no benefits. But it cannot prevent a broker from hiring them in because of the financial barrier it forms.
The case is “necessarily” brought, which means that the claimant claims that the behavior is inherently illegal and competitive, so that they have unveiled a negative impact of the rule.
The plaintiff accuses the defendants of violations of the Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act.
The VDF rule is written in the articles of association of NAR and requires brokers to pay extra contribution for every non-RealTor agent who works for the broker. If you do not do this, the broker’s own membership can be suspended or withdrawn.
But Diaz said that there are “legitimate and legal business interests” when hiring licensed agents for tasks that do not require NAR membership or services with regard to membership.
Examples are “Agent Visual Inspection Disclosures” – which are required by California State Law – Commercial Sales and Leasing Activity. Diaz believes that the VDF rule brokers punishes for hiring staff to perform these tasks.
Diaz’s suit is the last in a long line of attacks on NAR policy and rules, in particular the historical case in Sitzer-Burnett that Nar has settled up to $ 418 million. The claimants in the case claimed that the requirement of NAR for quotation agents to provide blanket offers of compensation to buyer agents on Nar-Liedened MLSS was competitive.
The settlement brought the industry and imposed new rules on those agent compensation offers on the local MLS, in addition to the requirements regarding the agreements that potential home buyers sign with their brokers.
Sitzer-Burnett was also put on its own, and the Missouri judge in the Steepen Bough-Liet case continue as such. Observers in the industry believe that this played a major role in losing the business.
