I had a conversation this afternoon with David Berenbaum Esq., Executive Vice-President of NCRC, who drafted the FTC complaint against Zillow.com. He told me that Zillow’s attorneys had requested a meeting which will take place the first or second week of November. He also said that one of the solutions was a disclaimer on both the home page and beside each zestimate, together with the margin of error or inaccuracy percentage. He said there was empirical evidence gathered over a period of time to support the allegation that consumers do in fact believe zestimates are reliable.
We’ll keep you posted on the latest developments.
JF: Will you be posting a text version of your interview?
I just spent a few minutes reading NCRC’s web site http://www.ncrc.org/index.php — And it seems to me a bit of a stretch to fit this complaint against Zillow in with the rest of their politically correct agenda. Maybe not the biggest conceptual stretch anyone ever made, but a stretch all the same.
I’m with Bloodhound on this one http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=581
Any settlement that is more that Zillow adding bigger and better disclaimers, is a step backward from web transparency towards the old smoke-filled backrooms of corporate deal-making.
Maybe the folks at NCRC are looking for an fresh infusion of cash for their Community Rescue Fund that (”gives borrowers at risk of foreclosure a “fresh start.” “) http://www.ncrc.org/whoweare/accomplishments.php
CJ, I respect your opinion and the hound’s crystal ball may be the newest model, but we am withholding judgment.
In our opinion, you can only successfully shake down someone who has something to hide or fear. As much as we have debated on Zillow & AVMs, we do not believe Zillow has anthing to hide or fear.
If Zillow pay-offs then that speaks volume as to their character.
The most logical response would be to resist the complaint and have the government rubber stamp a validation on the way you do business. NCRC is doing zillow a favor by giving them this opportunity. Paying a shakedown bribe is not a good business strategy or consumer confidence builder.
Not sure if I agree with you on this one, Sellsius. Shakedowns happen all the time in real estate (albeit on a much smaller scale), and are successful more often than we wish, regardless of whether the shakedown victim actually has something to hide or fear. It’s often easier to just pay the problem to disappear — aka “settle” — than to continue fighting on principle.
Example: Home buyer gets buyer’s remorse and talks to clever attorney, who advises him that though there’s no way to back out of the deal, he could at least get $20K or so back from the seller, or, more likely, from a combination of the seller and the seller’s broker. They find a problem with the home that allegedly wasn’t disclosed and threaten to sue for $100K. The seller and seller’s broker know for a fact that said defect was disclosed (page 63, paragraph 3b of disclosures). They have two choices:
1) Fight back as a matter of principle, knowing they will eventually win.
2) Settle for $20K.
That’s a shakedown in my book.
Fortunately, the most renowned shakedown artist in California real estate, an attorney by the name of David Barry, has rarely, if ever, won a case. Once a year, like clockwork, he files yet another frivolous lawsuit, is often unable to find a live plaintiff that’s actually been injured, and gets thrown out of court. We all breathe a sigh of relief. Actually, it’s been about a year now…uh oh, time to start worrying.
Kevin, I agree with you that shakedowns are a fact of life but I am not ready to get the rope and find a strong branch yet. I need a little more evidence & so withhold judgment(damn lawyer in me). But hey, that’s just me & you have the right to call it as you see it. No worries, mate. God bless America & free speech.
BTW, in my quest for the elusive truth, I called Berenbaum but also communicated w/David Gibbons of Zillow. David G told me he was suspect of the motives since NCRC did not first contact Zillow before filing but I know of cases where if you first contact and then file, it looks like the first contact was an extortion attempt. I think this happened in the Bill Cosby case some years back. SO I don’t think this lack of notice is a giveaway of a shakedown but rather a legal move to avoid the charge. David G. also said he’d wait to the meeting to see if NCRC motives are truly consumer-friendly. It will be interesting to see this unfold.
BTW, I’ve heard of that Barry fellow. Sleaze travels fast.
Sellsius, you’re right that we should probably withhold judgement until we find out what’s really going on. It certainly smells funny, however.