[razwall]

Take a look at the law they're suing under, regarding licensing of real estate appraisers (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=02250...).

It makes it illegal to "develop a real estate appraisal" without a license. An appraisal is defined as simply "an opinion of value". So if you are driving down the street and say to your spouse, "Look at that house, it's gotta be worth a million bucks," you just committed a misdemeanor.

This law as it's written has got to be unconstitutional.

[Mathnerd314]

> nor does this Act apply to the procurement of an automated valuation model. "Automated valuation model" means an automated system that is used to derive a property value through the use of publicly available property records and various analytic methodologies such as comparable sales prices, home characteristics, and historical home price appreciations.

If that sentence applies, I don't think they really have a case...

[gnicholas]

Good point. But what does "procurement" mean in this context? The plain meaning is "obtain", but that doesn't really make sense here. The word isn't used elsewhere in this document but is presumably defined somewhere.

If it is interpreted to mean "use", then the case is a loser as you say. But I wouldn't want to be the lawyer tasked with arguing to the judge that "the legislature meant 'use' but decided to say 'procurement' instead".

[Mathnerd314]

Generally in law you use a law dictionary, e.g. http://thelawdictionary.org/procurement/, which defines it as "the entire process of purchasing goods". "Entire" there suggests a broad term, hence interpreted inclusively in the context it appears. So in context it's probably something like "commercial use". But there are other questions of applicability, e.g. whether the legislature intended that sentence to only apply to financial loan decisions. It seems like there's no indicator of legislative intent on the original bill https://openstates.org/il/bills/96th/HB1015/, hence it would probably be the plain meaning as an independent clause, but IANAL...

[gnicholas]

In my experience (7 years as a corporate lawyer), a law dictionary would only be consulted for legal terms of art, which "procurement" is not. For most terms, a regular dictionary definition is used.

At any rate, I don't see how the definition cited would clear up the matter. It's a big leap from "the entire process of purchasing goods" to "commercial use". Like "use", which I discuss above, "commercial use" is a common term of art, and it would be strange to say "procurement" if what you mean is "commercial use".

[Mathnerd314]

Well, I was trying to shift the focus to "automated valuation model". That's used in other places and seems to be a term of the art in finance, e.g. this Kansas consumer bill: http://kslegislature.com/li_2016/b2015_16/measures/documents... Hence Zillow probably doesn't qualify, since it doesn't do loans or banking.

But the courts are so random; I'm guessing this case will be determined primarily by how much the judge that gets assigned likes technology. It'll be interesting to follow up on.

[SolarNet]

I'm not sure I understand your point. By visting the website one is procuring the estimate through an automated model in return for the ads and tracking you agree to by visting. Legal language is straight forward in this case.

[scott00]

Procuring an estimate produced by an automated valuation model is not quite the same thing as procuring an automated valuation model.

[gnicholas]

Exactly. It doesn't really make sense to talk about procurement of an automated valuation model, but that is what the statute seems to say.

[SolarNet]

It does because in this sense the model is the result of the automated valuation. You are thinking too much like a programmer when you think the automated valuation model is the model being procured.

[jcranmer]

Illinois is a common-law jursidiction. Any judge would laugh you out of court if you claimed an off-hand comment on valuation was an appraisal.

[razwall]

I agree. So where is the line between an "off-hand comment" that's not subject to the law, and an appraisal that constitutes a misdemeanor? Is it illegal if you post your comment on Facebook? Or on your blog where you talk about various homes for sale in your neighborhood? Or only when you start charging people money to hear your opinion?

A citizen cannot look at the law and figure out if they're committing a crime, which is why I said the law is unconstitutional.

[Digory]

This is pretty typical of professional regulation language. Go look at your state's definition of "counseling" or "practice of law." At the limits, it covers almost any advice to anyone.

It's usually more difficult to sue, though. The power is usually given to some semi-governmental group. The Courts go out of their way to find professional regulations constitutional, and the regulators try to avoid claims that might get the entire regulation struck down. That's why Illinois never goes after non-commercial speculation about house prices.

But sometimes they overreach. There was an article in the WSJ a few days ago about some state's Barber Commission levying $50 fines on cosmetologists with striped poles out front -- for improperly implying that a licensed barber was on premises.

This woman probably isn't suing to enforce the regulation, as such. She could sue without the professional regulation, but the law sets a professional standard of care for appraisers that Zillow doesn't claim to meet, so she hopes it will help her case.

[chasing]

I imagine if you offer your opinion about the price in a professional context where your opinion can affect the actual value of the property then you might have to follow some rules.

If you drive by a house and say "this house doesn't look like it's worth shit" you're probably not going to wind up in court after someone complains that said house is worth quite a bit more than shit and you're driving the price down.

Laws actually can be vague while remaining Constitutional. Sometimes it's unavoidable. Court cases can be used to refine the edges.

[razwall]

Actually this has come up before with a similar law in Arizona, where the state tried to ban Zestimates. Volokh's analysis basically agreed with me (http://volokh.com/posts/1177792494.shtml). Though I couldn't find any info about what ultimately happened with that case.

[dtrizzle]

I'm pretty sure the Arizona legislature changed the law to make it clear that Zestimates were lawful. http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/must-zillow-the-...

[tssva]

There was never an actual legal case. There were just cease and desist letters with threats of a case. Before any actual legal case could materialize the law in AZ was changed to allow automated appraisals without certification as long as no money changed hands for the appraisal.

[CPLX]

The line is almost certainly when you start using the estimate in the context of conducting commerce, which is a pretty straightforward and understandable distinction.

[59nadir]

> A citizen cannot look at the law and figure out if they're committing a crime, which is why I said the law is unconstitutional.

Zillow is not a citizen.

They're also in the business of providing these numbers, which is obviously far from the same thing as making a comment while driving down a street. I think you're trying to blur a line that's pretty clear to most reasonable people.

[rz2k]

IMDb now hides the ages of many actors[1] with the idea that unless they supply their own birth date it could be facilitating age discrimination. (I'm not sure if the Wikipedia article has the latest legal status or decisions)

A prohibition against unlicensed appraisals seems about as valid as hiding what is public information if you choose to make the effort and know where to look. However, I can see both decisions being overruled if appealed to higher courts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMDb#Litigation

[gnaritas]

> So if you are driving down the street and say to your spouse, "Look at that house, it's gotta be worth a million bucks," you just committed a misdemeanor.

No, but if you try and sell your opinion to make money that's when you're very likely crossing the line. An appraisal is something you pay for or make money from; opinions are not.

[razwall]

That might be your opinion of what the law should be, and I wouldn't disagree with that opinion, but it's not what the law says.

[gnaritas]

Unfortunately, what the law is is generally determined by more than the text of the law, but the law plus previous precedence so it's never enough to just look at the text of the law.

[pravda]

>This law as it's written has got to be unconstitutional.

...and certainly as it is applied here, to a 'zestimate'.

I predict Zillow will make a motion to dismiss on first amendment grounds. I also predict the judge will grant that motion.

RemindMe! One Year