Twelve years ago, when online services first began springing up, our idea of matching listers with lookers for New York City real estate seemed obvious, simple, and desirable. But as MLX gained momentum, traditional real estate interests were threatened. They used their trade-association rules and their influence with the New York Department of State to prevent MLX from offering consumers more choices, more information and access, and lower costs.

To defend our right to operate an innovative business that benefits consumers, we have been compelled to file a licensing lawsuit, a constitutional challenge, and an antitrust lawsuit.

Check this page regularly for updates on our cases, which will have an impact on your pocketbook and your choice of services. Winning these cases will make a difference not just for MLX and for me, but for everyone trying to buy, sell, or rent an apartment in New York.

Our online case histories include legal proceedings (marked with an asterisk) as well as correspondence, articles, and other documents that clearly show how New York State regulators are failing to serve the public interest.

LaLa Wang v. New York State Officials (Constitutional rights)

Summary of Case (2006- ):
For ten years, NYDOS selectively prosecuted LaLa Wang. In this lawsuit, Wang seeks to hold State officials accountable for violation of Constitutional rights.

Klickads v. Real Estate Board of New York (antitrust)

Summary of Case (2004- ): Klickads, which does business as BrokersNYC, filed an antitrust suit against the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), a trade association that represents the largest players in the New York City real estate market. By restricting members’ residential listings for distribution only through its own computer system and boycotting other integrators, REBNY seeks to monopolize information and, therefore, keep broker commission standardized.

LaLa Wang v. NYDOS (real estate broker’s license denied)

Summary of Case (2004 – 2006): NYDOS denies LaLa Wang’s application to reinstate her real estate broker’s license. Wang files appeal for yet another Hearing.

PCL/LaLa Wang v. NYDOS (AIV license denied)

Summary of Case (2003-2006): After fighting for many years that the 1975 Apartment Information Vendor law did not apply to her robust online brokerage, in August 2003 Wang was left with no choice but to capitulate to the NYDOS’s previous demand that she obtain an AIV license. Nine months passed and the NYDOS denied Wang the AIV license. Wang appealed and, in November 2004 upon a finding of “trustworthiness,” a judge granted her the AIV license. The NYDOS opposed the granting of the AIV license to Wang and a re-Hearing was set for 31 August 2005.

PCL v. George Pataki (Constitutional Challenge)

Summary of Case (2000-2006): MLX principal LaLa Wang mounted a constitutional challenge to New York’s Apartment Information Vendor (AIV) law on First Amendment grounds. The AIV law prohibits vendors from advertising specific apartments to consumers, a clear restriction of freedom of speech. Normally, restrictions on free speech apply to extreme circumstances, such as fraudulent advertising. But the AIV law allows newspapers and other publishers to publish classified ads for apartments while barring online services from publishing similar ads.

NYDOS v. PCL/LaLa Wang (unlicensed AIV)

Summary of Case (1999-2004): New York Department of State revoked the real estate broker’s license of MLX principal LaLa Wang because MLX refused to obtain an Apartment Information Vendor (“AIV”) license. The AIV law, adopted two decades before Internet commerce became a reality, does not contemplate online services such as MLX. Applying the law to online real estate services, as NYDOS is attempting to do, puts MLX and similar services into a Hobson’s choice of taking the AIV license and a) eliminating all real-time, on-demand services desired by consumers or b) providing efficient pro-consumer services not in compliance with the AIV law.

No Comments »

Trackback URI | Comments RSS