[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.