首页 / 法律问答 / 咱们这行早就收到警告了。

咱们这行早就收到警告了。

商业律师 5 回答

I read a really interesting article from Andrea V. Brambilia at Inman about agents trying to sidestep the recent commission lawsuit rulings. It highlights why those "workarounds" are a really bad idea, according to Doug Miller of Consumer Advocates in American Real Estate (CAARE), the group that kicked off the Moehrl lawsuit. Miller is calling out real estate agents for pushing misleading information to keep buyer broker fees high. He sees agents colluding to design fee agreements and thinks that's just asking for another lawsuit, just like the Moehrl and Sitzer cases. He's particularly concerned about agents pushing these ideas: * Sellers *have* to offer money to buyer brokers (outside the MLS) or agents won't show their homes. * Buyer agents won't work with buyers if there's no commission offered by the seller. * Agents are using a checkbox on buyer agreements to pressure sellers into offering compensation. Miller says these tactics are just ways to "steer" buyers and keep commissions inflated. He believes agents are smart enough to know how to get around this, such as including a seller credit in the offer. Wendy Gilch from CAARE added that these harmful ideas are widespread across different brokerages. Miller thinks offering commissions to buyer brokers off the MLS is a "huge mistake" and practically the same thing that got them in trouble with the Moehrl case. He argues that it artificially inflates fees, could be seen as a group boycott, and interferes with the buyer's agent's duty to their client. He advises sellers not to fall for agents who say other agents won't show their homes without upfront compensation, and buyers should avoid agents who steer them away from homes that don't offer it. CAARE sees the old system as "socialized real estate commissions," where everyone gets paid the same regardless of skill. They want buyers to negotiate their own agent's fees. Their advice to buyers who can't afford their own agent is to ask for a seller credit as a flat fee, not a percentage of the price. That way, they say, everyone wins.

#佣金诉讼 #反垄断 #地产代理 #买方经纪人 #CAARE

回答次数 (5)

OrangeSun

# 5

What is an “anticompetitive buyer brokerage contract?” Isn’t that what they want buyers to be using now? Should people believe this Miller guy’s idea of what is anticompetitive, when by his allies’ admission he “has no antitrust or economics background?”

IMO buyers should be putting two alternative offers in for every house they bid on: one with their agent’s fee covered by sellers, and one where they pay the fee themselves. Buyer agents should be walking the client through the math, which will inevitably lead to more competitive offers when the fee is covered. Sellers will inevitably accept those offers, and then zealots like this guy won’t have a leg to stand on.

SunFireDancer2

# 4

I mean, it also doesn’t sound legal for realtors/agents to limit a sellers ability to exercise their free market ability to offer a commission as part of their marketing strategy nor does it sound legal to force buyers into situations where they can’t financially perform because of commission coverage issues when their representation had knowledge that it could be an issue.

It sounds like all offered commissions should just be a blanket seller concession that is free to take for any representation or buyer to take upon a successful sale, and required verbiage should indicate that all concessions are liable to be negotiated pending the competitiveness of the offer.

Murphy2

# 3

This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional

Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time)
Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs.
Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. The code of ethics applies here too. If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one.
Follow the rules and please report those that don't.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Frank2

# 2

Doug Miller is a competing real estate agent/attorney who has been trying to get this low commission model to work for years.

https://minneapolisrealestateattorney.com/

He goes with the “low cost model” probably because he couldn’t cut it as a full service agent. He also had a title company that went under and thinks the agent community was out to get him and boycotting his company.

Instead of proving his model, he is suing to try and force buyers to adopt his model.

This guy does not care about buyer protection. He wants his way of doing business to have more opportunity. The fact that it’s gotten this far is unbelievable.

THIS is the real truth behind this guy. Check him out on this podcast and you’ll discover that he is truly a nut. https://youtu.be/D6Ejxg4fWcM?si=345SgIUB5PlC3jH-

莫

莫听穿林打叶声

# 1

I don’t see any universe where if a buyers agent asks the question “do you want to see any homes where the seller is not offering to pay a commission” and the buyer says no, that could be construed as steering. The settlement emphasizes transparency, particularly regarding the disclosure of commission structures. Agents are required to be clear about the commission arrangements and ensure that buyers understand that they may be responsible for paying their agent if the seller does not offer compensation. If the agent neutrally presents all options, including homes where the seller does not offer to pay the buyer’s agent commission, and explains the potential financial implications without bias, the agent is acting in accordance with all fiduciary, obligations and in line with the spirit of the NAR settlement agreement. It is our obligation to help the buyer understand all available options without unduly influencing their decision, and if they decide on their own that they don’t want to allocate their own resources to paying for an agent, there is nothing lawful or unethical about this arrangement.