It’s all about “informed” choice. Whether you agree with the scope of consumer protection or not, the underpinning of the law is that consumers should make informed choices. To that end, companies are made to post prominent disclaimers and disclosures. Some are dumb, of course, but we think the nature of the harm may be a factor in determining the extent of the disclaimer. Why exempt Zillow.com? Is the potential harm to consumers regarding the value of their property of sufficient importance to require a prominent non-appraisal disclosure?
If you argue the internet should be exempt from consumer protection, fine, let’s all agree on it. But to argue free is a license to deceive, we’re not about to board that wagon with the band. Zestimates may be free to consumers, but it’s their perceived value to consumers that draws them & then, in turn, advertisers who fatten the wallets of Barton & Frink Inc.
So, the case boils down to whether the disclaimer is sufficient for the buyer & seller of this most valuable asset, NOT whether someone should shut them down.
Zillow has said it’s there in many places where is recites median error rates & it does not have to be on the home page. But ask yourself why they don’t want it on the home page. Maybe THAT is what will determine their continued existence.
