First, was the ARMLS IDX policy guided by the 2000 NAR IDX policy, or was it entirely independent of the NAR IDX policy?

if the former, wouldn’t that raise the issue that the ARMLS IDX policy is potentially invalid under the DOJ-NAR settlement?

Second, have you been in contact with the people at NAR about this issue? If so, I’d love to see what their answer to you was — and if you’d post about it somewhere, I’d be sure to link to it.

Because your third paragraph tends to cast some shadows onto the clarity of the second. If the ARMLS IDX Policy was never implicated in the DOJ action (obviously, indirectly, as an outgrowth of the original NAR IDX policy) as an anti-competitive practice, then whether DOJ and NAR reached an agreement or not is immaterial to its validity. If the ARMLS IDX policy was valid prior to the settlement, then it’s valid afterwards.

The fact that you believe ARMLS has to review your data policies and update your IDX rules strongly implies that you believe your IDX policy does fall under the shadow of the challenged NAR policies.

If that’s the case, then I’m not sure whether your current IDX policies are in fact valid and in full force. I can see making an argument that it is, but equally, I can see the argument that it is not, because the ARMLS policy was based on the challenged NAR IDX policy, which was replaced by the ILD, which in turn was just repealed.

So there are two questions here, one of fact and one of law.

The fact question is whether, as you say, the ‘suspension’ or ‘non-implementation’ of the ILD in 2005 meant that the older IDX policy remained in full force and validity. I think this leans towards a “Yes” answer, but it isn’t obvious in the absence of a firm statement by NAR. What would help this is a clarification by NAR that post-settlement (which specifically repeals the ILD), the 2000 IDX Policy is in full force and valid effect.

The law question is whether the 2000 IDX Policy is or is not anti-competitive. That DOJ went after NAR for its 2000 IDX and VOW policies, which led to NAR promulgating the 2005 ILD policy, strongly suggests that the 2000 IDX policy is also anti-competitive in the view of DOJ. That would mean the ARMLS IDX Policy may be illegal. What would help here is a clarification by the DOJ that they were really after the 2000 VOW policy, and that the 2000 IDX policy was A-OK then and is A-OK now.

Again, to my dayjob, we will be advising our clients that for the time being, they should assume that the local MLS IDX policies are in full effect, but as a member of the bloggerati commentariat, I believe the question to be unsettled.

-rsh

First, was the ARMLS IDX policy guided by the 2000 NAR IDX policy, or was it entirely independent of the NAR IDX policy?

if the former, wouldn’t that raise the issue that the ARMLS IDX policy is potentially invalid under the DOJ-NAR settlement?

Second, have you been in contact with the people at NAR about this issue? If so, I’d love to see what their answer to you was — and if you’d post about it somewhere, I’d be sure to link to it.

Because your third paragraph tends to cast some shadows onto the clarity of the second. If the ARMLS IDX Policy was never implicated in the DOJ action (obviously, indirectly, as an outgrowth of the original NAR IDX policy) as an anti-competitive practice, then whether DOJ and NAR reached an agreement or not is immaterial to its validity. If the ARMLS IDX policy was valid prior to the settlement, then it’s valid afterwards.

The fact that you believe ARMLS has to review your data policies and update your IDX rules strongly implies that you believe your IDX policy does fall under the shadow of the challenged NAR policies.

If that’s the case, then I’m not sure whether your current IDX policies are in fact valid and in full force. I can see making an argument that it is, but equally, I can see the argument that it is not, because the ARMLS policy was based on the challenged NAR IDX policy, which was replaced by the ILD, which in turn was just repealed.

So there are two questions here, one of fact and one of law.

The fact question is whether, as you say, the ‘suspension’ or ‘non-implementation’ of the ILD in 2005 meant that the older IDX policy remained in full force and validity. I think this leans towards a “Yes” answer, but it isn’t obvious in the absence of a firm statement by NAR. What would help this is a clarification by NAR that post-settlement (which specifically repeals the ILD), the 2000 IDX Policy is in full force and valid effect.

The law question is whether the 2000 IDX Policy is or is not anti-competitive. That DOJ went after NAR for its 2000 IDX and VOW policies, which led to NAR promulgating the 2005 ILD policy, strongly suggests that the 2000 IDX policy is also anti-competitive in the view of DOJ. That would mean the ARMLS IDX Policy may be illegal. What would help here is a clarification by the DOJ that they were really after the 2000 VOW policy, and that the 2000 IDX policy was A-OK then and is A-OK now.

Again, to my dayjob, we will be advising our clients that for the time being, they should assume that the local MLS IDX policies are in full effect, but as a member of the bloggerati commentariat, I believe the question to be unsettled.

-rsh

ARMLS had, and still has, an IDX policy. ARMLS did not adopt a VOW policy, deciding to wait for all the litigation to shake out first. Now that it has, we may revisit the issue again, but as stated in the NAR release there has been little interest in VOWs since IDX and public displays of data are so prevalent on so many websites.

In light of the DOJ-NAR agreement, and recognizing that the landscape of data exchange and listing syndication has changed much since 2006, ARMLS will be reviewing our data policies and updating our IDX rules if needed. However, for the moment, the 2006 rules, linked to above, are still valid and in full force.

I hope that clarifies things for your client.

Best regards,
Bob Bemis, CEO
ARMLS

ARMLS had, and still has, an IDX policy. ARMLS did not adopt a VOW policy, deciding to wait for all the litigation to shake out first. Now that it has, we may revisit the issue again, but as stated in the NAR release there has been little interest in VOWs since IDX and public displays of data are so prevalent on so many websites.

In light of the DOJ-NAR agreement, and recognizing that the landscape of data exchange and listing syndication has changed much since 2006, ARMLS will be reviewing our data policies and updating our IDX rules if needed. However, for the moment, the 2006 rules, linked to above, are still valid and in full force.

I hope that clarifies things for your client.

Best regards,
Bob Bemis, CEO
ARMLS