Displaying 61 - 80 of 101
MiRealSource, Inc., In the Matter of
The Commission filed an administrative complaint challenging a set of rules adopted by MiRealSource, Inc. to keep Exclusive Agency Listings from being listed on its MLS, as well as other rules that restricted competition in real estate brokerage services. The complaint alleges that the conduct was collusive and exclusionary, because in agreeing to keep non-traditional listings off the MLS or from public Web sites, the brokers enacting the rules were, in effect, agreeing among themselves to limit the manner in which they compete with one another, and withholding valuable benefits of the MLS from real estate brokers who did not go along. On February 5, 2007 the Commission approved a consent order in which MiRealSource agreed to abandon such collusive conduct and provide its services to all member brokers representing potential home sellers, regardless of the type of listing contract that they choose.
MiRealSource Settles Charges it Illegally Restrained Competition
Williamsburg Area Association of Realtors, Inc., In the Matter of
The Williamsburg Area Association of Realtors, Inc. settled charges that it violated the antitrust laws by adopting rules that withheld valuable benefits of the Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) it controlled from consumers who chose to enter into non-traditional listing contracts with real estate brokers. According to the complaint, the association's rules or policies state that information about properties will not be made available on popular real estate Web sites unless the listing contracts are Exclusive Right to Sell Listings. These policies, when implemented, prevented properties with non-traditional listing contracts from being displayed on a wide range of public Web sites.The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit Williamsburg Area Association of Realtors from discriminating against non-traditional listing arrangements.
Monmouth County Association of Realtors., In the Matter of
The Monmouth County Association of Reators settled charges that it violated the antitrust laws by adopting rules that withheld valuable benefits of the Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) it controlled from consumers who chose to enter into non-traditional listing contracts with real estate brokers. According to the complaint, the association's rules or policies state that information about properties will not be made available on popular real estate Web sites unless the listing contracts are Exclusive Right to Sell Listings. These policies, when implemented, prevented properties with non-traditional listing contracts from being displayed on a wide range of public Web sites.The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit Monmouth from discriminating against non-traditional listing arrangements.
Information and Real Estate Services, LLC., In the Matter of
Information and Real Estate Services, LLC settled charges that it violated the antitrust laws by adopting rules that withheld valuable benefits of the Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) it controlled from consumers who chose to enter into non-traditional listing contracts with real estate brokers. According to the complaint, the association's rules or policies state that information about properties will not be made available on popular real estate Web sites unless the listing contracts are Exclusive Right to Sell Listings. These policies, when implemented, prevented properties with non-traditional listing contracts from being displayed on a wide range of public Web sites.The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit IRES from discriminating against non-traditional listing arrangements.
Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, Inc., In the Matter of
The Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, Inc. settled charges that it violated the antitrust laws by adopting rules that withheld valuable benefits of the Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) it controlled from consumers who chose to enter into non-traditional listing contracts with real estate brokers. According to the complaint, the association's rules or policies state that information about properties will not be made available on popular real estate Web sites unless the listing contracts are Exclusive Right to Sell Listings. These policies, when implemented, prevented properties with non-traditional listing contracts from being displayed on a wide range of public Web sites.The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin from discriminating against non-traditional listing arrangements.
Northern New England Real Estate Network, Inc., In the Matter of
The Northern New England Real Estate Network, Inc. settled charges that it violated the antitrust laws by adopting rules that withheld valuable benefits of the Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) it controlled from consumers who chose to enter into non-traditional listing contracts with real estate brokers. According to the complaint, the association's rules or policies state that information about properties will not be made available on popular real estate Web sites unless the listing contracts are Exclusive Right to Sell Listings. These policies, when implemented, prevented properties with non-traditional listing contracts from being displayed on a wide range of public Web sites.The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit Northern New England Real Estate Network, Inc. from discriminating against non-traditional listing arrangements.
FTC Charges Real Estate Groups with Anticompetitive Conduct in Limiting Consumers' Choice in Real Estate Services
Austin Board of Realtors., In the Matter of
Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc., In the Matter of
After an administrative trial, the administrative law judge found that a group of affiliated intrastate movers had engaged in horizontal price-fixing by filing collective rates on behalf of its member motor common carriers for the intrastate transportation of property within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The judge also ruled that the association’s conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because the State of Kentucky did not supervise the rate-making practices of the group. On July 12, 2004, the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. filed an appeal of the initial decision with the Commission. On June 22, 2005, the Commission issued a unanimous opinion finding that the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. engaged in illegal price-fixing by jointly filing tariffs containing collective rates on behalf of its members, and that the state action doctrine does not immunize that activity from antitrust liability. On August 22, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the opinion of the Commission.
Lewis, Robert, James Sowder, Gerald Wear, and Joel R. Yoseph, individually., In the Matter of
Private attorneys in Clark County, Washington who provide criminal legal services for indigent defendants under a county contract settled charges that they illegally entered into an agreement known as the “Indigent Defense Bar Consortium Contract” to collectively demand higher fees for certain types of cases and refuse to accept specific additional cases unless the Clark County complied with their demands. The county was forced to substantially increase the reimbursement rate for each of the case categories specified in the Consortium Contract. According to the Commission, the conduct of the attorneys was identical to the boycott staged by criminal defense attorneys in Washington, DC which was ruled to be price fixing by the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association. Robert Lewis, James Sowder, Gerald Wear, and Joel R. Yoseph, the four attorneys who led the activities and served as the representatives of the 43 attorneys who signed the Consortium Contract, were named in the complaint and in the consent order.
New Hampshire Motor Transport Association
The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association settled charges that it filed tariffs on behalf of its 400 members containing rules that called for automatic increases in intrastate rates during the summer months, conduct that was not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state. In addition, the organization agreed to void its collectively filed tariffs current in effect in New Hampshire, ensuring that future tarriff provisions would be filed individually.
Alabama Trucking Association, Inc., In the Matter of
An association of household goods movers agreed to settle FTC charges that it violated the antitrust laws by engaging in the collective filing of tariffs on behalf of its members who compete in the provision of moving services in the state of Alabama. The conduct is not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state. Under terms of a final consent order, Alabama Trucking Association, Inc. agreed to stop filing tariffs containing collective intrastate rates and to void collectively filed tariffs currently in effect in Alabama.
Movers Conference of Mississippi, Inc.
In an administrative complaint issued on July 8, 2003, the Commission charged that the association composed of competing household goods movers filed collective rates for intrastate moving services in the state of Mississippi. According to the complaint, these activities were not protected under the state action doctrine because they were not actively supervised by the state. Under terms of a final consent order the Movers Conference agreed to stop filing tariffs containing collective intrastate rates.
FTC Acts Against Alleged Web Cramming Operation
Minnesota Transport Services Association
A consent order settled charges that the household goods movers association filed collectively established rate tariffs for its members in Minnesota, conduct that was not protected by the state action doctrine because the conduct was not actively supervised by the state. According to the complaint, the MTSA filed collectively set rates on behalf of its 89 members, which had the effect of fixing prices of household goods moves, and restricting price competition to the detriment of consumers.
Iowa Movers and Warehousemen's Association, In the Matter of
The Iowa Movers and Warehousemen’s Association agreed to stop certain conduct to settle allegations that it filed collectively established tariffs for intrastate moving rates in Iowa - a practice which did not meet the requirements of the state action doctrine because the conduct was not actively supervised by the state.
Institute of Store Planners, In the Matter of
Under the terms of a consent order, The Institute of Store Planners must remove from its Code of Ethics any provision that prohibits its members from providing their services for free and any provision that prohibits competition with other members for work on the basis of price. According to the complaint, these rules unreasonably restrained price and nonprice competition among the members, depriving consumers of the benefits of competition among store planners. Its members provide architectural store design and store and merchandise planning to retail stores.
Indiana Household Movers and Warehousemen, Inc., In the Matter of
The corporation that represents household goods movers in Indiana settled charges that it filed collective intrastate rate tariffs with the State’s Department of Revenue on behalf of its members. According to the complaint issued with the consent order, these collective filings reduced competition for household goods moving services within the state, and the conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state.
Displaying 61 - 80 of 101