a May 9 Wall Street Journal report that the DOJ was preparing to finally bring suit in the case, the NAR authorized its leadership to develop a single, uniform policy governing the sharing of its listings.

DOJ vs. Local Realtor Organizations

While investigating the NAR's VOW policy, the DOJ has also been involved in a number of individual loc

From the National Association of Realtors' Virtual Office Website policy, to laws and regulations in individual states across the country, the U.S. Department of Justice has been fighting since 2003 what it believes are illegal practices by the U.S. realty industry that harm the American consumer. The issues can be complex at times, but understanding what's going on can be very valuable when buying or selling a home.

The Virtual Office Website Policy

In May 2003, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) passed their Virtual Office Website policy which allows realtors to selectively exclude their listings from other websites. Later that same year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an official inquiry into the policy—concerned that the policy could lead to practices which were anticompetitive and monopolistic.

Realtors could now, for example, allow fellow realtors access to their listings, but deny access to other competitors who threatened the traditional business model of the realty industry—by undercutting the standard 6% commission, for example. Colluding with competitors in order to stifle others, however, violates U.S. antitrust law.

Two years later, the DOJ investigation into the policy is still ongoing. While the NAR has stated publicly that they believe "the opt-out provision is legal and appropriate" and that they would "go to court for as long as it takes," just five days after a May 9 Wall Street Journal report that the DOJ was preparing to finally bring suit in the case, the NAR authorized its leadership to develop a single, uniform policy governing the sharing of its listings.

DOJ vs. Local Realtor Organizations

While investigating the NAR's VOW policy, the DOJ has also been involved in a number of individual loca

ng on can be very valuable when buying or selling a home.

The Virtual Office Website Policy

In May 2003, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) passed their Virtual Office Website policy which allows realtors to selectively exclude their listings from other websites. Later that same year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an official inquiry into the policy—concerned that the policy could lead to practices which were anticompetitive and monopolistic.

Realtors could now, for example, allow fellow realtors access to their listings, but deny access to other competitors who threatened the traditional business model of the realty industry—by undercutting the standard 6% commission, for example. Colluding with competitors in order to stifle others, however, violates U.S. antitrust law.

Two years later, the DOJ investigation into the policy is still ongoing. While the NAR has stated publicly that they believe "the opt-out provision is legal and appropriate" and that they would "go to court for as long as it takes," just five days after a May 9 Wall Street Journal report that the DOJ was preparing to finally bring suit in the case, the NAR authorized its leadership to develop a single, uniform policy governing the sharing of its listings.

DOJ vs. Local Realtor Organizations

While investigating the NAR's VOW policy, the DOJ has also been involved in a number of individual loc

ficial inquiry into the policy—concerned that the policy could lead to practices which were anticompetitive and monopolistic.

Realtors could now, for example, allow fellow realtors access to their listings, but deny access to other competitors who threatened the traditional business model of the realty industry—by undercutting the standard 6% commission, for example. Colluding with competitors in order to stifle others, however, violates U.S. antitrust law.

Two years later, the DOJ investigation into the policy is still ongoing. While the NAR has stated publicly that they believe "the opt-out provision is legal and appropriate" and that they would "go to court for as long as it takes," just five days after a May 9 Wall Street Journal report that the DOJ was preparing to finally bring suit in the case, the NAR authorized its leadership to develop a single, uniform policy governing the sharing of its listings.

DOJ vs. Local Realtor Organizations

While investigating the NAR's VOW policy, the DOJ has also been involved in a number of individual loc

or example. Colluding with competitors in order to stifle others, however, violates U.S. antitrust law.

Two years later, the DOJ investigation into the policy is still ongoing. While the NAR has stated publicly that they believe "the opt-out provision is legal and appropriate" and that they would "go to court for as long as it takes," just five days after a May 9 Wall Street Journal report that the DOJ was preparing to finally bring suit in the case, the NAR authorized its leadership to develop a single, uniform policy governing the sharing of its listings.

DOJ vs. Local Realtor Organizations

While investigating the NAR's VOW policy, the DOJ has also been involved in a number of individual loc

a May 9 Wall Street Journal report that the DOJ was preparing to finally bring suit in the case, the NAR authorized its leadership to develop a single, uniform policy governing the sharing of its listings.

DOJ vs. Local Realtor Organizations

While investigating the NAR's VOW policy, the DOJ has also been involved in a number of individual local cases.

In March 2005, the DOJ sued the Kentucky Real Estate Commission, challenging their regulation that prohibits Kentucky real estate brokers and sales associates from offering rebates and other inducements to attract customers. The DOJ charges that the regulation violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act by stifling competition and thus restraining trade. Fourteen other states have similar policies.

In April 2005, the DOJ sent an official inquiry to the Greater Tulsa (Oklahoma) Association of Realtors on charges of "boycotting"—refusal by traditional realtors to show homes listed by discount realty companies. While the practice is well-known to industry insiders, it's both an antitrust violation and a violation of the realtor's responsibility to their home buying clients.

Justice has also weighed in on debates in Oklahoma and Texas, who are considering bills that could eliminate many discount brokerage models by mandating that firms provide some minimum level of real estate services—bills championed by the realtor organizations in each state. Illinois already has passed similar legislation.

Effects of DOJ Efforts

At the root of all these cases is the issue of collusion. In order to maintain the current realtor-controlled market for home buying and selling, realtors, who are in all other respects direct competitors with one another, agree to "play nice" with other realtors, while at the same ti