There is still uncertainty in some markets on whether or not it's OK for Realtors to use the term "MLS" or "multiple listing service" in their Web site addresses. Some MLSs have passed policies banning participants from using these terms in Web addresses, company names, etc., and the National Association of Realtors board of directors has approved language for an optional policy that MLSs can adopt in restricting the use of MLS-related terms.

There is some debate (even a legal battle) on the issue, as Realtors who use or seek to use MLS in their marketing argue that non-Realtors and non-MLS members are free to use the term because it is not legally protected by NAR. Meanwhile, some Realtors and MLS officials say that improper use of the term "MLS" can serve to confuse and mislead consumers about the definition and function of MLSs.

Last week, members of a National Association of Realtors' committee made some minor changes to language in a case example that supports a provision in the code of ethics relating to Realtor's presentation of a true picture in their advertising and other representations to the public. The case example relates to a situation in which a Realtor used "MLS" in a Web site address. The original language in the case example "might be overbroad, and there could be circumstances where the letters MLS in a Realtor's URL might not be misleading," according to information considered by the committee.

When the case example was approved last year, it read: "While Realtor Z's Web site included information about other participants' listings that the MLS had provided -- and that Realtor Z was authorized to display -- the fact remained that a real estate-related URL that included the letters MLS would lead reasonable consumers to conclude that the Web site would be an MLS's, and not a broker's Web site. Realtor Z was found in violation of Article 12 as interpreted by Standard of Practice 12-10."

And after the committee's change: "While Realtor Z's Web site included information about other participants' listings that the MLS had provided -- and that Realtor Z was authorized to display -- the fact remained that a real estate-related URL that includes the letters MLS will, in many cases lead reasonable consumers to conclude that the Web site is an MLS's, and not a broker's Web site. That was the case with Realtor Z's URL and Realtor Z was found in violation of Article 12 as interpreted by Standard of Practice 12-10."

Is it deceptive for a Realtor who is an MLS participant to own and use a Web site address that includes the term 'MLS?' What if the Realtor is a member of the MLS? Displays listings data from the MLS? Includes disclaimers stating that the Realtor does not own or operate an MLS?

It's a local matter for local MLSs to handle through specialized policies or through secretive arbitration processes if there are complaints. Because the results of these case-by-case arbitration proceedings are confidential, it's difficult to know how this issue is being dealt with at the local level.

Connecticut Multiple Listing Service, a broker-controlled MLS sponsored by the state's Realtor association, this week launched a public property-search site at CTreal.com. The site features interactive mapping and "Sherpa," a drawing tool that allows users to select a home-search area by drawing a series of lines. It's not unlike Neighborhood Wizard, a tool featured at John L. Scott's Web site. John L. Scott uses Microsfot's Virtual Earth for its mapping platform, while CTreal.com uses Google Maps.

Cameron Paine, CEO for Connecticut MLS, said there are plans to send feeds of property information from its participants to Google and possibly other Web sites, with their permission. The CTreal.com site includes residential, commercial, rental properties and vacant land -- MLS officials hope the site becomes more popular for consumers in the state than home-search staple Realtor.com, as is the case with the Houston Association of Realtors' HAR.com site in the Houston market area.

Sharing seems to be in the air these days between MLSs, too, with data-sharing and other cooperative plans cropping up across the country. A National Association of Realtors advisory group is studying the potential for a national "Gateway" for information on properties of all types, possibly with some consumer access -- and a California Association of Realtors group pursuing a statewide data-sharing initiative that could evolve as a true statewide MLS, while local and regional MLSs in the state are workign on their own collaborative ventures.

On the commercial real estate front, the National Association of Realtors this month announced an acquisition that will lead to the creation a national commercial real estate listing and transaction platform. Sam Scott, director of commercial services for the Houston Association of Realtors, which has worked with the company that will form the basis for the commercial portal, described the planned venture as a "commercial Realtor.com."

What's next? Will these various efforts ultimately converge? Or will they collide?

Standard of Practice 12-12, a part of the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice that was enacted in January, provides that Realtors "shall not use URLs or domain names that present less than a true picture, or register URLs or domain names which, if used, would present less than a true picture."

This standard falls under Article 12 in the Realtor code, which provides that Realtors "shall be honest and truthful in their real estate communications and shall present a true picture in their advertising, marketing and other representations." (See Inman News article.)

A case example for this new standard, provided by the National Association of Realtors in its 2008 Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual, found that a Realtor who operated a real estate site named "northwoodsandlakesmls.com" was in violation of the code and standards because "a real estate-related URL that included the letters MLS would lead reasonable consumers to conclude that the Web site would be an MLS's, and not a broker's Web site."

The matter is up for local hearing panels to consider, in the event ethics complaints are filed against Realtors who operate sites with the word "MLS" in them or who are otherwise accused of using a misleading Web address.

There is an obvious, and in some cases bitter division among Realtors on the issue of whether Realtor agents and brokers should be free to market the MLS term in Web site addresses. Even before NAR adopted the new language into its code and standards, some MLSs took it upon themselves to craft restrictions on participants' use of MLS and related terms.

There was even a lawsuit in Minnesota over the issue. And NAR has adopted guidelines that MLSs can choose to adopt to pass restrictions on the use of MLS and related terms in Web site addresses, company names, e-mail addresses and other marketing materials.

The divisiveness of the issue is reflected in reader mail to Inman News. One reader wrote, "Using the term MLS in a domain name or Web site name is most certain unfair competition to other Realtors and is misleading to the public. It is very sly and its use improperly skews online search results."

And another wrote, "By restricting Realtors from owning MLS domains, NAR has opened a huge gash that will quickly be overrun by people they have no control over -- the very public they think they are protecting with this rule. I believe they have failed to think all the way through on this. Who would you rather have representing MLS domains? Realtors (who NAR can control) or anyone else (no control) who can be as unscrupulous as they wish?"

Is there any middle ground here?

There are other debates on the Web site naming issue, too: One reader told Inman News that there is an issue with agents using Web site addresses that suggest they work exclusively with buyers, while they actually work with both buyers and sellers. And there have been skirmishes over Realtors who use descriptive words with the "Realtor" term that have been deemed inappropriate by Realtor associations. A difference there is that NAR does own the trademark for "Realtor," but not for "MLS."

How do you define "days on market" for property listings? It would seem that number would be a pretty simple one to track -- uh, the number of days since the home was first listed for sale?

Wrong. The answer is "it depends."

Back in 2006, Inman News looked at some brewing controversy over days on market as it pertained to a practice known as "re-listing," in which agents pull listings off the market and re-list in order to reset the number of days on market to zero and make the listing look newer in the eyes of other agents and buyers.

That period between pulling a listing and putting it back on the market could be called "days off the market," or "time out." And this week, a related issue has come up in Washington, D.C., where a local business journal is reporting that MRIS, the major MLS serving the area, has decided to decrease from 180 to 90 the number of days a property is required to be off the market before the MLS resets the days on market number to zero when it is re-listed.

The Washington Business Journal quotes a local buyer's broker, Stephen Israel, as saying, "It's absolutely a knee-jerk reaction to the market… It's great for the seller who can't sell their house, they get a clean slate in 90 days instead of 180." Israel is president of Buyer's Edge in Bethesda, Md.

MRIS told the Journal it was simply part of an ongoing policy review and that the 180 days was an arbitrary figure selected in 1993.

Regardless, days on market is a contested issue among industry participants. In some cases, agents have said this information can easily be misinterpreted and penalizes sellers by making the house seem like there's something wrong with it. Other brokers, such as ZipRealty, display the information on every listing they have data for. (See reader's reactions to the topic of re-listing.)

What do readers think? Is this a move that aims to mask market conditions in which homes may be extremely difficult to sell? Or is this change simply adjusting the off-market period to a more reasonable time frame?

Remember that we're in an era of increased demand for transparency, and while moves like this may not intend to deceive, they could be interpreted that way.

UPDATE: A local Washington, D.C. area Realtor, Heather Elias, has shared more details about the MRIS change in the comments section below.

Several months back, I spoke with a real estate professional who said she didn't include properties in a foreclosure process when preparing a report on comparable properties that sold recently -- also known as a Comparative Market Analysis or CMA -- for a home that is not in a foreclosure process. CMAs can give sellers an idea of how to price their home for sale given the selling price of similar homes.

But in a market that is laden with properties that were acquired by banks through a foreclosure process or sold through bank-approved short sales, it would seem difficult to ignore them. How are individual agents, real estate brokers and brokerage companies addressing this issue of which comps to use and which ones not to use? REO properties could have a host of issues that typical properties do not. A participant at the Appraiser Talk online forum noted that these are challenging times for appraisers, too, in determining which properties will best serve as comps for formal appraisals.

REO and short-sale properties, as distressed properties, may fetch less than those properties that are not in a foreclosure process and are not under any pressure to sell quickly. Even after they are listed for sale, REO properties could suffer "a significant amount of damage or vandalism (stolen copper pipes, break-ins, water pipe bursts ruining floors, etc.)" that could differentiate them from otherwise similar properties, for example, according to a post at the Appraiser Talk site. And how do agents approach a CMA for an REO or short-sale property when there aren't any other REO or short-sale properties in the neighborhood?

At Trulia.com's Trulia Voices site, one agent stated that foreclosures "have had a huge impact on the CMAs" in some neighborhoods, adding, "I always try to run one CMA with the foreclosures included and one without to review with my clients."

Another agent at that site expressed worry that appraisers are using distressed sales as comps, stating, "that is the biggest problem with the current mortgage meltdown. This is affecting every home in the neighborhoods with foreclosures."

An MLS policy in Wisconsin that restricts participants' use of the terms "MLS," "search the MLS," and "multiple listing service," among other terms, is among several other policies passed by local MLSs.

The Northwestern Wisconsin MLS's policy provides that "Participant shall not use the term 'multiple listing service,' the acronym 'MLS' or derivatives ... in participant's firm name" or in domain names, Web addresses or URLs, and "No participant or user shall indicate or imply in any manner that (they are) a multiple listing service or that they public has access to or may search the (MLS) on the participant's or user's Web site." (See Inman News.)

Meanwhile, a Realtor in Georgia has started up a petition at FreeTheMLS.com over language in the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice -- he questions whether the language could apply to members' use of MLS-related terms.

The National Association of Realtors board of directors in November approved language for an optional policy that local MLSs can choose to adopt to set restrictions on use of 'MLS' and related terms in Web site addresses, company names and marketing among MLS participants.

UPDATE: Lucien Salvant, a spokesman for the National Association of Realtors, said that Article 12 in the NAR Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice requires Realtors to "present a true picture in their advertising, marketing, and other representations," and Standard of Practice 12-10 "discusses 'true picture' in the context of URLs, domain names, manipulation of data, deceptive keywords and metatags, etc." NAR also has Standards of Conduct that can be adopted at the discretion of an MLS that allow MLSs with non-Realtor participants to extend some (but not all) of the duties the Code of Ethics imposes on Realtors to all MLS participants.

Salvant said if an MLS adopts a standard of conduct based on the "true picture" requirements for Realtors in the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice, complaints could be considered by a hearing panel.

The standard, he said, "does not delineate specific phrases or uses that are -- or are not -- acceptable. The ultimate test is how the message would be received by a reasonable consumer."

The 10 shareholder Realtor groups that own Chicago-area Multiple Listing Service of Northern Illinois have worked out their differences in a settlement agreement that would allow a merger between MLSNI and another Chicago-area MLS (see Inman News).

The settlement proposal, which seeks to resolve a lawsuit that is now under appeal, will be considered by the MLSNI board next month, and will also be considered by shareholders and the board for MAP MLS, the MLS that is pursuing a merger with MLSNI.

Half of the shareholder Realtor groups had filed a lawsuit last year against MLSNI and the other shareholder groups to block the merger. The planned merger has been a lengthy and messy process to date, and it's not a done deal until all parties have signed off.

Representatives for the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission showed up in Seattle this month during a meeting of the 50-year-old Council of MLS group. And yes, they were invited.

The agency representatives delivered presentations about the purpose of antitrust law and the types of MLS policies and rules that are not allowed under antitrust law, as well as offering an update on antitrust enforcement activities.

You can view the FTC rep's presentation, which focused on a lawsuit against a Michigan MLS, here -- and the DOJ rep's presentation is here. Watch Inman News for a full story.

The U.S. Department of Justice today announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with the Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head Island Inc. over MLS policies that the DOJ alleged are in violation of federal antitrust law (see Inman News).

The proposed settlement, which requires the MLS to change its rules that are challenged by the DOJ, is subject to a 60-day written comment period and court approval. The Justice Department also announced that it has also filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against the MLS in conjunction with the proposed settlement -- approval of that settlement will resolve that complaint. The lawsuit allges that MLS rules unreasonably:

• raise entry barriers for potential competitors by imposing burdensome prerequisites for membership;
• provide a means of identifying potentially aggressive competitors so they can be excluded from membership;
• stabilize the price of brokerage services through the prospect of price controls;
• deter the emergence of Internet-based brokerages;
• stabilize the price of, and reduce consumer options for, brokerage services by dictating the services that all brokers must provide;
• and discourage entry of potential competitors who raise funds through public ownership.

An MLS official acknowledged that a settlement agreement had been reached while denying any wrongdoing by the MLS. About 215 brokerages and 1,800 sales agents are a part of the MLS.

Earlier this month, the DOJ launched a Web site that details competitive issues in the real estate industry (see this Inman Blog post).

Gregg Larson, CEO for real estate consulting company Clareity, said California Association of Realtors officials did not allow the distribution of a report, prepared by his company, to attendees of a multiple listing service issues meeting today at the association's annual conference in Anaheim.

Association officials were not immediately available for comment Thursday afternoon.

The Realtor group is weighing options for a major MLS transformation in the state. Under consideration is whether to pursue an aggregation of real estate data for the state or to create a unified statewide MLS. Members of the Realtor group's state board of directors are scheduled to meet on Saturday to consider these options.

A briefing paper prepared by an MLS Working Group suggests three possible choices based on these two categories:

• Should California Realtors pursue the development of a statewide aggregation system that maintains separate MLS systems?
• Should California Realtors pursue the development of a statewide MLS?
• Should California Realtors pursue the development of an aggregation system through the development of a single database that could also be used as a statewide MLS at a local association's option?

Larson's paper (view paper here) proposed a series of steps that the association's brokers and directors could take as an alternative approach to the issues. Some of these recommendations include: "Facilitate statewide open and free data standards for listings and membership data," "standardize statewide MLS rules and regulations," and "facilitate the creation of a 'virtual' statewide aggregation of MLS active and comparable data that can be accomplished using existing infrastructure and technology by existing entities" -- namely groups that have already embarked on regional data-sharing or MLS consolidation.

Larson, who was not in attendance at the association's conference but had employees in attendance, said that the paper was intended to be constructive and he didn't expect that the association would not allow its distribution. "They were pulling them from peoples' hands and putting them in the trash," he said. "The thing that is so bizarre is they were stopping people from getting a printed copy of the paper when they didn't even know the contents of the paper. This was just proposed for their consideration."