OK.  Let me know If I am REALLY tracking this...

FIRST:  The DOJ filed a suit meant to prohibit allegedly anti competitive practices of MLS members. 

THIS WAS SAID TO BE IN THE INTEREST OF PROHIBITING "PRICE FIXING", AND INCREASING COMPETITION AMONG BROKERS, WITH THE INTENT OF LOWERING CONSUMER COMMISSION COSTS INCURRED DURING REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. 

THE DOJ suit clearly supported new style online brokers or agents who apparently had lower cost business models.  The DOJ suit went to war with "OLD STYLE" Brokers who actually put time and effort into "SERVING, ADVISING, and PROTECTING" CONSUMERS.  These brokers establish offices and recruit agents who actually know which neighborhoods are trending which directions, and where the new highway is going next year, and which railroad or shipyard wants to annex property through emminent domain..    

BUT NEVERMIND THE VALUE OF ALL THAT FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY OR AWARENESS..... (This is the stuff of licensing law - with entire books and ethics committees and court docket records from actual cases....  so who needs all that - right?)

AT LEAST - (AT THE VERY LEAST) THE DOJ WOULD PRESUMABLY BENEFIT CONSUMERS BY MAKING LOWER COST COMMISSION MODELS MORE AVAILABLE TO CONSUMERS.  That was the plan...  RIGHT? 

NEXT, NAR and MLS's defended themselves by pointing out that the MLS's did not want to share listings or commissions with "middlemen" who did not bring any real knowledge or service or value to the transaction other than placing listings online.  It sounds like a good argument - but they may have caved in so that the DOJ would take their BIG FLASHLIGHT and go home.  After all, they might find the back room of the real estate industry, where what "looks like" RESPA WORKAROUNDS might actually allow real working people to actually make a living helping consumers with a very complex legal and financial transaction....    

Years past, and lawyers got rich....   

The proposed settlement clears the way to turn more web savvy agents or brokers into middlemen who will now troll the internet for referrals that can be passed along to people already working 70 hour weeks and spending thousands of dollars a month on marketing, adding a whole new layer to the commission sharing game that was presumably OUTLAWED by RESPA...  

GUESS WHAT....  IF YOU DRIVE UP COSTS FOR STARVING PRACTITIONERS, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WORST MARKET IN 50 YEARS - THEN COSTS FOR THE CONSUMER WILL RISE.

Only our GOVERNMENT could imagine creating a new cost for the poor Realtor at a time like this. 

All this does is "TAX" the poor agent who is listing or selling homes in the trenches by actually, <GASP> spending TIME and MONEY interfacing with highly variable and indecisive human transaction units.

END RESULT IS OPPOSITE THE ORIGINAL INTENT - BUT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY? 

Don't you think consumers may end up paying more for actual Realtor services because the agent now has to give away more of his or her commission to middlemen.  Rates at street level may have to increase to allow for SOMEBODY to actually "serve, advise, and protect" the consumer.

Thank God the DOJ is protecting consumers by REVERSING many of the core issues in RESPA and creating a whole new industry that will feed off the commission stream without actually providing any real fiduciary services... 

(now - tell me again... who put them up to this - and WHY DID NAR AGREE)? 

What am I missing here? 

*BTW - Yes, I know that NAR felt exposed on a couple other fronts that could have cost hundreds of thousands in legal bills and might have cost NAR or MLS their actual position in the economy if they managed to lose the suit...  But isn't this why we pay them?  To protect and serve the interest of Realtors? 

ONE CAVEAT:  We have not even opened the can of worms about intellectual property rights of the Realtor who took the photo and wrote the marketing copy.  These acts produce "works of art".  Under copyright law, in the USA, there is a basic concept that nobody should be able to make money of protected works of art without paying the creator....  Hmmm...  Rock solid ownership with a right to be protected and paid????  I would have thought NAR and MLS's would have focused here....     

BUT I DIGRESS... SADLY... BACK TO THE CORE ISSUE....  NAR and MLS's could have asserted ownership of intellectual property, protected working agents, and actually derailed this price gouging train wreck before it brought down the whole train station..... and before it drove up transaction costs for agents and thus for consumers.

COMMENTS?  THOUGHTS?  WHAT AM I MISSING?