A little history: The Real Estate Board (aka REBNY), a trade association that is controlled by the big brokerage firms, started a residential listing service a few years ago. These exclusive listings come from REBNY members, and their distribution is tightly controlled. The independent brokers who subscribe to our BrokersNYC service would have to pay through the nose to access them in any readily usable form. When we asked REBNY if we could disseminate the listings to our members through the BrokersNYC website, REBNY refused.

We filed an antitrust suit in 2004, saying it was anticompetitive to prevent services like BrokersNYC from distributing these listings to independent brokers at an affordable price. (And of course, the lack of competition doesn’t just hurt BrokersNYC and the independent brokers; it hurts consumers, too.)

Our lawsuit asked that REBNY be required to deal with any listings information service that, like BrokersNYC, operates on behalf of REBNY members, and to integrate directly with our software so that independent brokers could get a product equivalent to what the majors were getting. We also asked for at least $78 million in damages.

Last August, a judge threw out REBNY’s motion to dismiss the case. In January, we met with Magistrate Judge Dollinger and agreed to settle, and the settlement went into effect recently. While we didn’t get everything we asked for (that’s the point of a settlement), BrokersNYC is now free to compete on an equal footing with its competitors that service the brokerage community – and our clients, and ultimately the consumers, will get a better deal. We’re looking forward to rolling out new features for BrokersNYC very soon.

ShareThis

For background on Klickads v. REBNY case, click here.

Inman article Manhattan real estate antitrust lawsuit proceeds, click here

Real Deal article BrokersNYC suit against REBNY progresses click here.

ShareThis

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.

ShareThis

Lala Wang, founder and CEO of MLX, an online real estate listings service, this week announced her decision to make a final appeal to the United States Supreme Court to resurrect her business of enabling renters, buyers, sellers, landlords, and brokers the access and exchange of property listings, resources, and information on-demand via www.mlx.com.

Wang has spent the last eight years battling New York State regulators over a disputed Apartment Information Vendors (AIV) license required by law for individuals selling apartment rental listings. The AIV statute is an antiquated 1975 law intended to prevent potential fraud in the real estate market, but in its current form, the law penalizes innovative businesses like Wang’s MLX, which offers consumers access to property listings previously available exclusively to brokers.

Wang’s online service provides consumers with more choice through access to a wider spectrum of property listings, lower costs in the form of no-fee apartments, the ability to access property info and tools around-the-clock, instant email updates of new listings, and myriad other benefits for consumers seeking new apartments. “We’re essentially a matching service, so apartment seekers can both search for apartments and also place ‘apartment wanted’ ads allowing brokers and owners to contact them directly,� Wang said.

In a recent interview with host Tai Aguirre of the New York-based investigative radio program “Scams-n-Scandals,� Wang contended that the AIV does not apply to MLX, and that compliance with such a law would force her to conduct business illegally, subjecting MLX to millions of dollars in fines each month.

Wang’s refusal to get an AIV license on grounds that it would make her business illegal or unprofitable has resulted in the suspension of her real estate broker’s license. This, even after former New York Secretary of State Sandy Treadwell observed in 1995 that the AIV law was “onerous and should be amended.� Four years later, Treadwell changed his mind and selectively prosecuted Wang for violating the AIV statute, ignoring the thousands of daily violations committed by licensed AIV vendors.

“The problem with the AIV law is not in trying to provide consumer protection, but in its failure to allow businesses the ability to comply with it,� noted Moshe Tal, an Oklahoma entrepreneur and advisor who supports Wang’s cause. “This conflicting application of the law hampers entrepreneurs’ ability to conduct business by undermining their competitiveness, and is a serious violation of Ms. Wang’s constitutional rights.�

Citizens for Voluntary Trade President Skip Oliva said his organization actively supports Wang’s decision to appeal her case to the Supreme Court: “Far from protecting consumers, the AIV law serves as an unconstitutional barrier to interstate commerce, hampering newer technology-based services that look to compete with established real estate brokers, or even traditional First Amendment forums like newspapers.�

In addition to CVT, Wang has received the support of numerous other public policy groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Institute for Justice. CEI’s Braden Cox has written about Wang’s plight: “Ironically, in trying to enforce a consumer protection statute, New York’s state government is hurting consumers by enforcing a law that hinders innovation.�

During the “Scams and Scandals� segment, Tai Aguirre queried NYS Chief Council for the Division of Licensing, Bruce Stewart on why Ms. Wang’s real estate broker’s license was revoked without having received any customer complaints. “It looks to me like a clear cut case of selective enforcement and the railroading of an innovator to protect the profits of entrenched special interests� says Aguirre.

Wang’s Supreme Court appeal will argue the AIV law imposes unconstitutional restrictions on her freedom of speech and her freedom to conduct business. Wang will specifically challenge the refusal of the New York courts to address these constitutional issues. Wang expects to file her petition in early December, and a decision from the Court on whether to take the case will be made early next year.

Later this month, Wang and her supporters will launch a grassroots Website (www.officialmisconduct.com) dedicated to exposing corrupt government behavior and practices, in an effort to institute greater accountability of elected officials.

ShareThis