Links, lawsuits and privacy in the age of real estate 2.0
Perspective: From the Future of Real Estate Marketing blog
By Joel Burslem, Wednesday, February 25, 2009.In an important case for bloggers and real estate sites in general, real estate aggregator BlockShopper got its hand slapped heavily this month for doing what many of us do ... that is, publishing and linking to publicly available sources on the Internet (see related Inman News story).
BlockShopper, a site that was launched in 2006, was built to aggregate real estate data in a number of metro areas around the country. One of the main features on the site is a daily news summary of real estate transactions in each city. ("Italian anesthesiologist drops $1.3M in Riverdale" serves as an example.)
But this practice raised the ire of a local law firm. Writer Wendy Davis brings the issue to light in an article on Slate Magazine:
"BlockShopper was following standard operating procedure by linking to publicly available Web sites. But Jones Day got mad. The law firm (a big one, at 2,300 lawyers) has never publicly said why it sued; maybe the powers that be there thought the posts compromised their lawyers' privacy. Housing records are public documents, but the Web turns public into accessible, and the firm presumably wasn't thrilled about having its attorneys' home purchases broadcast.
"Jones Day demanded that BlockShopper remove the items. When BlockShopper refused, the firm sued the 15-staff startup for trademark infringement. Jones Day's legal theory was that BlockShopper's link would trick readers into thinking that Jones Day was affiliated with the real estate site," the article states.
On the surface, the allegations of trademark infringement seem dismissable. But unfortunately, the judge in the case didn't seem to agree and allowed the case to continue.
So rather than pursue a costly court battle, and having already spent six figures in its own defense, BlockShopper settled out of court and agreed to a cumbersome URL structure when linking to the law firm's attorneys (such as not using the firm's name in the anchor text).
Writer Davis argues the ramifications of this case mean companies may, in the future, seize the opportunity to dictate to Web publishers how they can link and what they can link to. That is a truly frightening prospect.
But I also think the heart of the issue is ultimately the sphere of privacy that surrounds where people live. That notion has largely been turned on its head in "Real Estate 2.0" (see "'Transparency' hits home").
BlockShopper's practice of blogging individuals' purchases may have offended the attorneys in the law firm. But really, is it much different from Zillow publishing a Zestimate or Google providing a Street View of that same home? They are all pulling from sources that are ultimately in the public domain.
Google itself has stated that "satellite-image technology means that ... complete privacy does not exist," and won a privacy suit based on that principle. Indeed, it seems not even the U.S. military is immune from this new world.
Clearly we're still stumbling through this new era of transparency and some people don't like what's happening. I don't have all the answers to this issue. I just hope, when all's said and done, it's not the lawyers who end up telling us what can and cannot be published.
Originally posted on the Future of Real Estate Marketing blog. Joel Burslem is vice president of content at Inman News.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor.
All rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
Bookmarking Sites
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Larry Whited Sr. on February 25, 2009 - 6:06am.
Too bad they did not have the funds to take it to appeal.
I don’t believe the law suit would have made it past that level of judicial review.
The settlement of this case sets a precedent that the next company will have to confront. This is an alarming development.
Larry A. Whited, Sr., CRB, CRS, GRI
President & Founder
www.maxUnet.com & www.WebMLS.net
P.O. Box 757
West Chester Ohio 45071
Direct - (513) 543-2727 Fax - (513) 297-7497
Submitted by Ned Carey on February 25, 2009 - 9:00am.
Larry, They didn't lose the case, they settled. But your point is correct this case wouldn't have made it far.
I think this case does bring up the issue of lawsuit abuse. This is a law firm after all and they decided they could bully the website and bury them in legal expenses.
Ned Carey
http://baltimorerealestateinvestingblog.com/
Submitted by Lenn Harley on February 26, 2009 - 2:57am.
This turns the meaning of "public information" on it's head.
Does it mean that information is public until it's published? Or, does it mean that information is public if you go to the court house and look it up personally?
Land records are historically public information. Of course, Google has taken the meaning of "public" to new heights, or depths.
What I don't understand about this case is, what were the damages on which the plaintiffs sued?
Lenn Harley
Broker
Homefinders.com
http://www.homefinders.com
Submitted by Cole T. on May 5, 2009 - 8:47pm.
It was very bad that they didn't have enough funds to take it to appeal. Dollar Financial Group Inc. the parent company had claimants that are seeking $224 million from Money Mart. There’s a new lawsuit brewing. These lawsuits are those citizens of the nation Canada presently suing a payday loans company in a class action lawsuit. There were over 264,000 participants. The trial began in Ontario Superior Court last Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 and was expected to last in six weeks. So far, this is the largest class action today against a payday loan firm anywhere. . If the lawsuit arrives at a judgment for the plaintiffs, then it could very difficult for lenders to keep operating. Dollar Financial Group Inc. the parent company had claimants that are seeking $224 million from Money Mart. There’s a new lawsuit brewing. These lawsuits are those citizens of the nation Canada presently suing a payday loans company in a class action lawsuit. There were over 264,000 participants. The trial began in Ontario Superior Court last Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 and was expected to last in six weeks. So far, this is the largest class action today against a payday loan firm anywhere. . If the lawsuit arrives at a judgment for the plaintiffs, then it could very difficult for lenders to keep operating. If the lawsuit arrives at a judgment for the plaintiffs, then it could be very difficult for lenders of short term loans to keep operating.
Submitted by John Maclen on July 22, 2009 - 8:19am.
It is clear that they did not have the funds to pursue a lawsuit which would have helped them probably win and bring to light the legal rights of a company against another firm that is creating links on their website their by fooling visitors that the law firm is in some way associated to BlockShopper. If maybe the law firm which I think they would have been aware of that they could taken a pre settlement lawsuit funding and may be seen a positive out come of the feud.