The NCRC complaint against Zillow.com was filed 26 days ago. Today we have the first detailing in the public prints of the bogus nature of the charges (subscription required):
Absent specific instances of harm, the complaint looks more like a scheme to grab some of Zillow’s publicity than a legitimate beef. The fact that the coalition didn’t contact the company about its concerns before it filed the complaint also looks suspiciously like grandstanding or a fishing expedition.
Worse yet, the Center for Responsible Appraisals and Valuations, an offshoot of the coalition, reportedly has hired a third party to offer an automated valuation model and site-visited appraisal services through one of the coalition’s own Web sites. That makes Zillow a competitor of the coalition.
The complaint also fails to explain why Zillow would be at fault if its inaccurate estimates were used to mislead low-income or minority buyers as the coalition contends. That’s important because it isn’t bad data, but rather, bad actors who should be held responsible for harm to the public. And thus it’s not Zillow, but rather, unethical realty and mortgage brokers who should be prosecuted when fraud or other crimes occur. And that’s true regardless of whether or not the victim happens to be of a low-income or minority group.
Moreover, where is the evidence that any other estimates of home values are more accurate than Zillow’s? After all, homes are sold every day for substantially more or less than the asking price due to multiple offers, price reductions and negotiation between buyers and sellers after homes are put on the market. Are sellers’ asking prices harmful to the public because they don’t necessarily present an accurate representation of a home’s value? Any estimate of value is by definition an opinion.
In the best of all possible worlds, inaccurate data wouldn’t exist or be tolerated. And yes, Zillow would be a better service if its estimates were more reliable. Yet, no one is obligated to use Zillow for any purpose whatsoever, and if the service offers little or no real benefit, so what? Until the coalition comes forward with specific instances of actual harm caused by unknowing reliance on Zillow’s data, the complaint doesn’t appear to have much merit.
Still no examination of the history of NCRC and its fund-raising tactics, but it’s a start…
Our story so far:
- Welcome to Race Piracy 2.0: Zillow.com is targetted for the crime of having deep pockets…
- Zillow.com shake-down: This is the first shoe dropping…
- Zillow.com shake-down: Creeping disclaimerism as a subject-changing gambit…
- The Zillow.com shake-down: How the other shoe will drop…
- The Zillow.com shake-down: BloodhoundBlog’s take so far — and a chance to win a BloodhoundRealty.com Tee Shirt…
- The Zillow.com shake-down: Preparing for the denouement…
- The Zillow.com shake-down: The piling on begins — and Spencer Tracy is nowhere to be found…
- Defending Zillow.com…
- The Zillow.com shake-down: At last a discouraging word about NCRC…
- Avid AVM aversion extends only to Zillow.com: NCRC off-shoot starts competing on-line valuation service…
- The Zillow.com shake-down: Deconstructing the NCRC complaint…
Technorati Tags: disintermediation, real estate marketing
teresa boardman says:
Good point, no one has to use Zillow. I care that consumers get good information but also feel strongly that Zillow should exsist,they seem to have enough disclaimers on their web site. A reasonable person can see by reading the first page that Zillow does not warrant the data. There are millions of misleading pages on the internet, in the form of advertising and marketing. Are we going to shut them all down?
November 22, 2006 — 5:58 am
Greg Swann says:
I still want a clear discalimer on the home page and with every Zestimate, but with — what? — half-a-dozen players in this game by now, the idea itself is big-E Establishment. Morph? Yes. Vanish? No way.
November 22, 2006 — 7:44 am