Conflict of interest for state regulatory commissions

The Consumer Federation of America is on the offensive again, attacking state real estate regulatory commissions for their "blatant conflict of interest." How has this been swept under the rug during the ongoing disputes involving the FTC and DOJ? This seems to be one of those "no-brainer" topics needing to be addressed in order to facilitate fair, unbiased industry regulation. Currently, traditional full-service agents are serving as the lawmakers for almost 70 percent of states across the nation. It’s no wonder why minimum service laws are being created! Commissioners are doing whatever they can to eliminate competition in the form of alternative models like flat fee brokers, arguing the industry is already more competitive than any other. The competition is there in numbers but not in choice. The industry is not "competitive" unless consumers have an opportunity to choose from a bevy of different levels of service. Some consumers may need "full representation" and contract negotiation assistance while others have enough experience to handle all aspects of the transaction short of marketing exposure provided by the MLS. If the rules are created for the benefit of the consumer, give them the gift of choice and let them decide.

See Also