ahhh, this is fun stuff. I'm telling you, business is changing.

John,

Front row seats make it even more interesting.  Your photo surprises me to say the least.  I worked for Classic Property Management in Torrance.  Not related.  They certainly wouldn't let me stick my tongue out at the clients :)  They didn't get to tell me much, but that photo is ...odd to say the least.

Ardell, I was not aware of this huge fine, sounds interesting. Do you have an article somewhere online you can point me to so I can read about it?
Thanks.

$50k is cheap compared to what it could cost them if they were sued by a seller with the means and will to do so. 

Michelle,

I agree, but are they really the only ones blogging about property?  I see private people doing it too.

http://www.raincityguide.com/2007/05/17/from-stirring-to-digging-in-one-day

http://blog.redfin.com/2007/05/down_dog_and_kennel.html

http://www.thenewstribune.com/business/story/66173.html

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/venture/archives/115501.asp?source=rss

Doesn't matter. You go after the ones who are front and center saying "Look at me". I wouldn't go after the idiot blogger, but the broker who shows my house and blogs negatively about it now has opened the door.

You don't even have to win, just be willing and able to make them bleed, while making them look bad to sellers.

I am all for that fine amount, the more the better. This company likes to bad bouth agents and the money they think agents make, even though the people commenting on the houses were not from Redfin.. but I bet they really were.

Michael,

They were "free-lance" paid by Redfin to write the posts, but not employees of Redfin.

Redin should just set up Sweet digs as an independent company to own Shack prices and pay advertising money to Sweet Digs.

Shack Prices has the same rules as Redfin.  Won't work.

I thought the fine was excessive but then they were asked repeatedly to stop and they just kept at it.

Greg,

The big question is do the rules ever need tweaking?  Or do they always stay the same.  The rules were never changed enough to incorporate buyer consumers having some rights too.  So someone has to push the envelope to make some progress in that regard.  Someone has to say "maybe the rule breaker is right and the rule needs to be changed". 

Remember most of the rules were long established during a time when we all represented sellers.  Simply following the old rules is not necessarily where we need to be headed.  But scrapping them and only listening to what potential buyer clients would like is not the answer either.

We have to make a little room for rules to be brought up to speed and advanced, don't we?