“This situation needs to resolve in favor of allowing Google to index individual real estate listings, regardless of whether they are on the listing broker / agent’s website of a buyer agency website like mine.

Here is why:

I just went under contract as the buyer agent for buyers on a property that they found by entering the MLS number in Yahoo, came to my website as a result, and they requested a showing using the “Listing Inquiry” form. I responded immediately, within an hour of the request, did the showing 2 days later, and wrote the offer for them the same day. During the initial showing, they said that they would NEVER have considered use a seller’s listing agent since the buyer was an attorney and was well aware of the potential conflict of interest that could have engendered. They also said they had requested showings using the”Request Showing” form at two other real estate websites that the property address came up for, and I was the first to respond to their request. One of the agents never responded to their request, and the other agent did not respond until the following day, so I got their business.

So, there are two critical points to be made regarding this situation and the outcome:

1) The buyers were better served because they found a buyer agent, which was their preference for representation, and not the listing agent. They were also better served because they had a choice of multiple buyer agents, and went with the one that was able to respond immediately and provide faster / better service, in this case, myself.

2) The first agent to respond to and meet the consumer’s immediate needs not only has a better change of getting their business, but also serves the public’s needs better.

In my opinion, DOJ Antitrust Division needs to get quickly get pro-actively involved with this situation before NAR and MIBOR, the association that has instigated and prolonged this conflict between anti-competition interests within their membership and the interests of the public. In this case, I would like to see DOJ get an emergency temporary restraining order against MIBOR and NAR from enforcing any interpretation that search engine indexing constitutes “scraping” and is therefore a violation of NAR’s IDX “anti-scraping” policy.”

I would add to this that the sellers best interests were also well served, because we were able to move more quickly than their listing agent would have been able to do. It turns out that he was unavailable to do the showing on the buyer’s schedule due to prior vacation plans. Fortunately, he was also technologically well equipped, and was able to respond to our offer and communicate with myself and his seller client via wireless internet and cell phone technologies. So, at least in this case, the consumers on both sides of the transaction were well served, by their respective agents, and by the technology of the Internet, embraced by both agents.

Seriously considering the thought of bringing my “Boooooo!” shirt when I attend the November convention.

Right now, I couldn’t stomach being next to any of them They shake your hand and tell you they will accept the changes – as soon as you leave they fight you. Not the type of people I choose to associate with, and yet, here I am stuck in the middle of their “power” trip.

Truly – this is not something I wish to pursue through the DOJ. While the DOJ and NAR get their attorneys involved, we could wait five years for an answer, I bet NAR and MIBOR would love the option of waiting for five years without having to provide an interpretation.

OTOH – I’m certain many will use the option. Thanks for the email address.

If your local board, and NAR will not protect the rights of it’s members maybe the only solution is to Contact the Department of Justice?

This is clearly a one sided ruling that threatens to weaken online brokerages and only benefits Traditional Brick and Mortar Brokerages.

Email for DOJ real estate anti-competition matters: RealEstateCompetition@usdoj.gov

I would suggest that everyone send the DOJ your thoughts on this matter.

I find it rather ironic this started with one agent from Indianapolis who knew exactly what he was doing and ended with an Indianapolis Board Member who obviously supports malicious behaviour from their members, but doesn’t know the difference between malicious scraping and Google indexing.

Who is pulling who’s string in Indiana?

This kind of of logic reminds me of the federal government following antiquated policies and programs put into place and kept in place by politicians that are counting votes and looking no further than the next election.

As I told @tcar – the decision to “brand” Google or any search engine a “scraper” sight was made in less than an hour and two emails.

No where in the policy, as it is written, does it say Google is a scraper, it was always the interpretation. To say now you must wait for a new vote because someone based their decision on an interpretation which can not be reinterpreted is to assume we are all idiots.

The solution – put pressure on my local board, which is like running in circles and getting nowhere. We tried at the local level, they deferred to NAR and now NAR defers me back to my local board – I’m going nowhere fast.

Still, I am grateful for everyone’s support. We must continue to educate those who are willing to learn.

My understanding (and I could be wrong on this) is now the next opportunity for passage will be in November at the NAR annual convention.