Heads up, folks. It’s a shake-down.
Poor Zillow.com has gotten itself caught up in a classic Jesse Jackson-style shake-down. This is specious bullshit, and everyone who cares about justice — and about not having the rest of the net raped by posturing diversity pirates — should line up with the Zestimators.
They should disclose openly that the damn gizmo is a toy — but what moron doesn’t already know this in his heart of hearts? But they’re hoist by their own petard, because their pretense to a vast scientific “accuracy” is what is being used against them.
Here’s the worst of it, Zillow.com will probably wuss out and pay these crooks off, just like Coldwell Banker did.
Welcome to Race Piracy 2.0…
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: blogging, disintermediation, real estate marketing
David G says:
Bless you, Greg. Obviously we agree.
October 26, 2006 — 4:33 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Bless you, Greg. Obviously we agree.
Don’t pay. I will fight beside you forever if you stand for the right to run your business your own way. Well, I’ll probably still give you grief, but I’m your ally in this shake-down attempt. Godspeed to you all.
October 26, 2006 — 4:37 pm
jf.sellsius says:
NCRC is not asking for money for itself as far as I can see. Did you read the complaint?
October 26, 2006 — 5:13 pm
Greg Swann says:
> NCRC is not asking for money for itself as far as I can see.
Have you followed the way these things work? NCRC will raise a lot of sturm und drang (done), then ultimately sigh and agree to be placated with a huge donation or a seat on the Zillow.com board or a company-wide re-education program provided at enormous expense by NCRC — or one of its zillions of affiliates. Groups like this run games like this over and over again, and corporate wusses pay them off because they’re afraid of being called racists.
This is not new. It happens all the time.
If you care about your right to run your business your way, you’ll side with Zillow.com.
October 26, 2006 — 5:21 pm
Christine says:
Yea – I agree with you Greg, Everyone has the right to run their business the way they see fit. But, in the same token where does the liability lay when things go wrong? Listen, this is the era of a suing frenzy. Let me ask you – If a realtor has the Zestimator directly on their site – won’t it look like that realtor agrees and backs the estimate? How do you go back and tell that seller, “No, that is just a gimmick, you could not have POSSIBLY believed the computer?” I don’t think that Zillow is 100% wrong – I feel that the realtor’s who are agreeing or just brushing it off are the ones who will wind up with the liability. Or am I wrong to think this?
October 26, 2006 — 5:32 pm
Greg Swann says:
I’m not sure I understand the question, Christine. If I can’t price a house to my own satisfaction — as with an historic, for example — I insist on an appraisal. I won’t list a home if I’m not 100% confident that it is priced to the market. I wish Zillow.com would disclose on their home page that a Zestimate is not an appraisal, but I would never be in a situation where I would take liability for a Zestimate, either.
If Zillow.com has any legal liability — and I don’t think they do, since everyone knows the difference between an appraisal and an on-line gimmick — that would be a tort case: Some one injured party seeking redress for a real, material, past injury.
This stunt today has nothing to do with that, in any case. Tonight NCRC grabs headlines based on Zillow’s great PR efforts. Later they will grab for the cash, based on Zillow’s great funding efforts. This has nothing to do with justice — or even real estate. It’s nothing more than a crude shake-down attempt.
October 26, 2006 — 5:42 pm
Athol Kay says:
“Here are some good ol’ boys in Texas who are using Zillow.com to milk the rubes. They’re responsible for their own behavior, of course, but who made it possible?”
Quoted from —-> https://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=215
October 26, 2006 — 5:47 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Here are some good ol’ boys in Texas who are using Zillow.com to milk the rubes.
You’ll have to elaborate. What’s your point? I already said that Zillow.com painted themselves into this corner “because their pretense to a vast scientific ‘accuracy’ is what is being used against them.” So what? The punishment for inane public posturing is public ridicule — at which movement I am in the vanguard.
Nothing justifies the stunt being pulled today — and god help us all if it works…
October 26, 2006 — 5:54 pm
Christine says:
Greg – I don’t think that I understand you. So what you are saying is that Zillow has absolutly zero liability in this? You mean to tell me that the Zestimates that they are giving is suppose to be common knowledge that thier site is a gimmick? And you are are telling me that someone is not going to find a way to cash in on this? Let me see if I am understanding you – Zillow has zero liability?
October 26, 2006 — 5:59 pm
Larry Cragun says:
I have consistantly said let zillow do their thing. consumers get it. Thanks greg for having some guts. lar
October 26, 2006 — 6:04 pm
Greg Swann says:
Zillow.com has exactly as much legal liability, as far as I’m concerned, as the purveyors of horoscopes. Anyone who is duped by either is a volunteer, deserves what he gets — and has much worse problems anyway.
In my opinion, Zillow.com should disclose openly that a Zestimate is not an appraisal, and I think they should watch to make sure their API is not being abused by con-men. Beyond those two caveats, they are one with the angels with me. It is only the possibility for misunderstanding that I am concerned with, but, at the same time, I do not believe that anyone actually believes either Zestimates or horoscopes.
And again: None of this has anything to do with the NCRC shake-down.
October 26, 2006 — 6:09 pm
jf.sellsius says:
If this is in FACT a shakedown, then we are all on board. I will be at the front of the picket line with the biggest sign, arm in arm with David G. Greg do you have proof?
But why would Zillow, me, you, or anyone with a backbone, pay shakedown artists, in any case? Zillow is not a pillow. So how could they get shaken down? Am I missing something here? They would be fools to do so & none of us think they are fools. As a citizen, I just need a little proof of this “shakedown” beyond “Groups like this run games like this over and over again….it happens all the time”.
Also, the FTC decides if there is any legitimacy to the claims. If they agree, the FTC says “stop it, stop it” & you stop. The long standing AVM business model is not on trial, never was. Surely the FTC is not in on the shakedown. If they say it’s all hooey, then no one gets shook & NCRC needs a towel to wipe the egg off before it asks for donations.
I, for one, think a conspicuous disclaimer makes these issues go away. Don’t you agree.
October 26, 2006 — 6:22 pm
Greg Swann says:
Here is a nice article on how the NCRC shakes down banks. I knew what they were from reading their web site — but I have seen vicious stunts like this all my life.
The point is not to have the FTC rule on anything. The point is to make Zillow.com reek so badly that it ponies up the dough — in one guise or another — to regain its former sweet smell.
If it works even once, they will do it again and again to every RE.net start-up with money and clean reputation.
October 26, 2006 — 6:27 pm
Greg Swann says:
And, incidentally, here is how to take a principled stand against this kind of politically-correct thuggery.
October 26, 2006 — 6:34 pm
jf.sellsius says:
Is this the shake down proof? It looks more like a publicity stunt and using obscure laws to get yourself in the public eye. It looks more like marketing than mayhem.
If NCRC had this kind of power to influence government against one of the most powerful lobbies, banking (only insurance is stronger IMO), then those Zillow folks ought to just poney up then 🙂
Those NCRC guys must have names like “Fat Tony” “Vinnie Bag o’ Donuts” & “Joey the Lender”
Serioulsy though, does it matter who makes the claim, if the allegagtions are true? It’s up to the FTC to decide. A poor analogy perhaps, but: If a convicted murderer catches a theif, do we release the theif?
According to this commentor from Seatle PI : some idiot lawyer & judge actually used a zestimate to this poor soul’s distress. Maybe someone has to protect the idiots from hurting themselves & others.
posted by unregistered user at 10/26/06 4:49 p.m.
Last month, in my divorce mediation, there was a discussion about my home’s value, which everyone had agreed would be off the table. Suddenly, not only was it on the table, but my wife’s attorney produced Zillow-generated valuations for my property which were grossly over-valued. Yet, this valuation was considered gospel throughout the session. THe Zillow data probably cost me $100k. I’ve thought of suing Zillow myself.
October 26, 2006 — 7:17 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Is this the shake down proof?
Joseph, this is a shake-down, and that’s all it is. One of the reasons it works is that no one pays attention as it happens over and over again. If Zillow.com caves, eventually they will come for your company — and people you thought you could depend on will make glib excuses and look away.
October 26, 2006 — 7:41 pm
Kevin says:
Shake-down; no other way to describe it. Additional, bolder, more frequent disclosures about what Zillow is and is not would not have led to a different outcome — NCRC would still have come after Zillow.
October 26, 2006 — 8:08 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Additional, bolder, more frequent disclosures about what Zillow is and is not would not have led to a different outcome — NCRC would still have come after Zillow.
I read the complete complaint and I concur with this conclusion. The complaint itself is absurd — no lender will take a Zestimate. If con-men are using them — as I documented being done in Texas — the crime is theirs. The sole purpose of this exercise is to hustle Zillow.com for cash.
October 26, 2006 — 8:11 pm
jf.sellsius says:
You obviously know more about NCRC than I do, so if you say it’s a shakedown & not a publicity play, I’ll just wait to see how it plays out to see if you’re right. But I don’t see Zillow as a shake down victim. Based on the timing of it (TechCrunch post), the filing seems more likley a publicity move. But what the heck do I know.
I don’t quite understand the second part of your comment. NCRC was not an org. that zillow could depend on that looked away. And who would come for little guys like us? And why?
October 26, 2006 — 8:23 pm
Kevin says:
The shakedown is in the last paragraph of the 12 page complaint; boldface mine.
“Wherefore, NCRC requests that the FTC act in the public interest and permanently enjoin and restrain Zillow.com from violating the FTC Act in connection with offering its valuation services, find Zillow jointly and severally liable for redress to all borrowers who were injured as a result of the company’s violations of the FTC act; and ensure that all affiliate sites, including Yahoo Real Estate and the Yahoo search engine, incorporate injunctive and consumer protection settlement claims as agreed upon by the parties.“
October 26, 2006 — 10:09 pm
Kevin says:
It’s doubtful the NCRC would come for the little guys like us, unless one of us little guys raised $60M. But on a smaller scale, all of us in the business are harmed by the notion that disclosures in real estate need to be calibrated to the most potentially stupid idiot out there. That’s why disclosure packets, at least here in California, are 150 pages long and include nuggets of wisdom such as that streets around schools may have heavy traffic in the mornings and afternoons during the school year.
October 26, 2006 — 10:14 pm
jf.sellsius says:
We should be so lucky Kevin. Of course, over-regulation for the benefit of the least common denominator is the price we pay for living in a litigious society and this overburdens many a business. Agreed. But the question of equal treatment under the law remains a valid issue. If real estate brokers are required in some states to post a conspicuous non-appraisal disclosure on their CMAs (and no one takes these for gospel either) why does Zillow get a free pass?
The complaint’s 22 odd paragraphs & subs (of which about 4 are on predatory tactics using zillow, which is a bogus claim) basically boil down to that, a good one sentence disclaimer— though in the hands of a lawyer it could take 150 pages.
October 26, 2006 — 10:47 pm
Tom says:
Totally agree with Greg. It seems so many “moral” groups are using these tactics just to extort money from businesses and then using that to keep extorting more money. I’m not a Zillow fan, but they have the bux to fight this, and they should!
October 27, 2006 — 1:06 pm
jf.sellsius says:
This legal tactic is common. Sue for 100 million bucks and settle for a simple disclaimer. That’s the extent of NCRC’s motive IMHO. They will settle for a disclaimer. And I think a disclaimer is not much to ask & zillow would have gotten a lot less grief had they done it from the git go. Ask yourself this: Why is zillow’s disclaimer 2 or 3 layers down? Because the truthfulness of this statement undercuts their pitch to consumers : “Buyer, Don’t overpay, Seller, use our tools to set a price.” A prominent disclaimer hurts the bottom line.
A disclaimer is worth more to NCRC than a few bags of money.
October 27, 2006 — 1:35 pm
iji oh says:
Maybe the author should check to see whether zillow.com actually has “deep pockets”. It’s an Internet startup, still funded by private (and, no doubt, venture) capital. So, taking that into account, they’re hardly the ideal target for an alledged shakedown. I bet they haven’t even turned a profit yet.
You’ve tried to make NCRC out to be a big bad stick-up operation, but you’ve marshalled absolutely to evidence to make your case. In fact, the link you offered to “prove” they’ve shaken down other companies, is a press release that makes no mention of money changing hands. Where’s the shakedown?
November 2, 2006 — 9:59 pm
Greg Swann says:
Zillow has $57 million in VC funding.
The NCRC shake-downs I have been able to uncover:
These are the three instances I have found, having invested less then ten minutes’ research time:
November 2, 2006 — 10:13 pm