Compliance For Compensation vs Concession Needs Clarification

Compensation vs Concession

Saul Klein asks in a recent post: “Is there a clear distinction between the two, for the purpose of the proposed NAR Settlement, and for the purpose of MLS compliance with the Settlement?”
I have read everything I can on this issue, and I have been following antitrust litigation in real estate for decades.
It seems to me that the “intent” of the Settlement, and of the DOJ in recent years, has been to remove from the MLS, the “Offer of Compensation” and anything that is even disguised as an “Offer of Compensation” (whether it is called a “Seller Concession” or anything else).
Under the Settlement, is a Seller Concession to a Buyer Representative allowed to be stated in an MLS, in any way?
I hear mixed comments from various sources that a “concession” from the seller to a buyer representative is not an offer of compensation, and that stating that the seller is willing to make a “concession” in the form of a payment to a buyer representative is something that IS allowed under the Settlement.
Some are going so far as to say that under the Settlement, a Seller’s Concession to pay a Buyer Representative is permissible to be stated in the Private Remarks section of an MLS (either an amount, or just stating that the seller is “willing” to make a buyer representative concession). Is this an accurate position or interpretation of the Settlement?
My reading of the Settlement is that stating payment to a buyer representative in the MLS, whether it is called Compensation offered by the listing broker, or a concession offered by the seller, violates at least the intention of the Settlement, and would put MLSs that follow this advice in harm’s way. But what do I know, I wasn’t in the room when the Settlement was negotiated, so I don’t know what was intended, and “Clarification through litigation” is not a desirable path for my MLS, so I want to get this straight. I want to comply with the Settlement, and to do so requires what might look like mere nuance and not important to some.
A “Definitions” section covering key terms in the settlement would have been very helpful. The only people who know what the parties drafting the settlement intended are the attorneys for the Plaintiffs and NAR. We are left to guess what the Settlement negotiators had in mind on Key Elements of the settlement agreement. I earned while attending the US Naval Academy in the late 1960s, never to guess. It could cost someone their life.

Share This Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Stay connected.

Get up to the minute updates and resources.

Search
Other Articles

Stay Connected.

Get up to the minute updates and resources.