During a Tuesday zoom hearing, Judge Saris clarified her understanding of a lawsuit focusing on residential real estate, specifying that commercial and mobile home transactions were distinctly different and unrelated. She questioned the relevance of MLS PIN's stance on allowing sellers to offer compensation to buyers' brokers through the MLS. MLS PIN's attorney argued this restriction could violate first amendment rights, prompting discussions about the potential antitrust implications. Judge Saris expressed doubts about evidence proving that sharing broker compensation had any anticompetitive effects, particularly after learning that only 25% of properties listed offered greater than $0 in broker compensation.
Despite arguments from MLS PIN's attorney Matt Goodin, Judge Saris felt that both commercial and mobile homes were too different from residential properties central to the lawsuit.
Goodin argued removing offers of compensation from the MLS could infringe on sellers' first amendment rights, presenting it as a commercial speech issue.
Judge Saris expressed skepticism regarding the anticompetitive effects of sharing buyer broker compensation offers, noting a lack of evidence to support such claims.
I was completely in the government's camp until I heard that 25% number, referring to the statistic that only 25% of MLS PIN properties offer significant compensation.
Collection
[
|
...
]