With the National Association of Realtors' Settlement of the Anti-Trust case, we wonder how will this all shake out. 

First, What is an "Anti-Trust" suit in the first place? That is right: time for a little history lesson. 

In 1890, the Congress of the United States passed the first such legislation. It was specifically aimed at curbing the immense concentration of power in private industry. The idea was to encourage competition and restrict monopolies. Just like anyone who has played the board game, a monopoly enables the person who has the monopoly to demand higher prices for whatever it is they are selling. In the board game, it is rent, but it applies equally well to oil companies, telephone companies and, of course recently, social media companies. You can get more when you are the only game in town. 

The danger of these so-called "trusts" (i.e., the monopolies) is that the entity with the monopoly has all of the power. So, in this case, a group of Sellers were complaining to the Courts that they had been charged to pay for the Agent who represented the Buyer of their house. 

The way it had been working is that the Seller of the home would hire an Agent who would list the house for sale, agreeing to pay a percentage of the eventual purchase price to the Agent- usually 6% for a house. One of the ways the "listing" agent would advertise the house was by placing it in the Multiple Listing Service (the "MLS"). 

An agent who had a client looking for a house would look at the MLS and find a few houses in their client's price range, neighborhood of interest, right number of bedrooms, that kind of thing. The would-be Buyer's agent would then look to see how much of that 6% the Listing Agent was getting from the Seller was available to the Buyer's agent. Typically, the Listing Agent would split the 6% with the Buyer's Agent. 

The Buyer's Agent would set up appointments, not only for the Buyer to see the house, but, if an offer was made to buy the house, would also help coordinate any inspections and negotiate the terms of the purchase, looking out for the Buyer's interest. 

Well, now, all that has changed. The settlement reached now prohibits the listing agent from offering any of their commission (the 6%) to a Buyer's Agent in the MLS. The idea is that, with the Seller's agent no longer being allowed to use the MLS to let the buyer's agents know what they can expect to get paid, the Sellers' Agents will charge less than 6%. This may be true; it may not. 

The Sellers' Agents may think that they will have to do their own work as well as the work which used to be done by the Buyers' Agents. They may think double the work, double the money they should receive and keep the whole 6% to themselves. This is a problem for the Buyer, though, as they no longer have an Agent on their side. The only Agent in that plan is the Seller's Agent. 

The Buyer's Agent might seek to get paid up-front before they put the work in to finding the perfect (well, the best available) house for the Buyer. 

Further, this means that Agents who used to represent Buyers, advocating for them, arranging to show them multiple houses, getting any inspections done and helping get the deal done, will face 4 options: 

1) get the Seller to pay them directly to represent the Buyer's, not the Seller's, interests; 

2) get the Buyer to pay them directly, thereby limiting the money available for a down-payment; 

3) get the listing Agent to share the commission after finding the house for the Buyer; 

4) get a new job. 

If the job of Buyer's Agent goes the way of the Dodo Bird, then the importance of having an attorney in your corner becomes of paramount importance. 

BEFORE YOU SUBMIT AN OFFER DRAFTED BY THE SELLER'S AGENT, give it to our attorney and discuss how to best protect yourself and understand the costs associated with your offer. 



The Seller's Agent is interested in getting the house sold with the very best deal for their own client, the Seller, as quickly and for as much money as possible.