Slashdot Mirror
Zillow Faces Lawsuit Over 'Zestimate' Tool That Calculates a House's Worth (washingtonpost.com)
According to The Washington Post, "a homeowner has filed suit against online reality giant Zillow, claiming the company's controversial 'Zestimate' tool repeatedly undervalued her house, creating a 'tremendous road block' to its sale." From the report: The suit, which may be the first of its kind, was filed in Cook County Circuit Court by a Glenview, Ill., real estate lawyer, Barbara Andersen. The suit alleges that despite Zillow's denial that Zestimates constitute "appraisals," the fact that they offer market-value estimates and "are promoted as a tool for potential buyers to use in assessing [the] market value of a given property," shows that they meet the definition of an appraisal under state law. Not only should Zillow be licensed to perform appraisals before offering such estimates, the suit argues, but it also should obtain "the consent of the homeowner" before posting them online for everyone to see. In an interview, Andersen told me she is considering bringing the issue to the Illinois attorney general because it affects all property owners in the state. She has also been approached about turning the matter into a class action, which could touch millions of owners across the country. In the suit, Andersen said that she has been trying to sell her townhouse, which overlooks a golf course and is in a prime location, for $626,000 -- roughly what she paid for it in 2009. Houses directly across the street but with greater square footage sell for $100,000 more, according to her court filing. But Zillow's automated valuation system has apparently used sales of newly constructed houses from a different and less costly part of town as comparables in valuing her townhouse, she says. The most recent Zestimate is for $562,000. Andersen is seeking an injunction against Zillow and wants the company to either remove her Zestimate or amend it. For the time being, she is not seeking monetary damages, she told me.
Okay, so they suck. Should they be censored over it? Because this is what is being demanded.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
A roommate and I rented the front unit of a triplex in Silicon Valley after the dot com bust. I had planted some petunias in the front yard, got busy with life, and let the petunias die. While we were out in front one day, a little old lady came up to tell us that the dead petunias in our front yard lowered the value of her house down the street by $25K. I asked her if she was selling her house. She said no. I asked her how she knew that the value of her house dropped by $25K if it wasn't up for sale. She walked away in a huff.
You'd think that they'd filter out buildings like that.
Especially with undesirable tenants living there.
Or maybe all the cigarette and pot smokers moved out because federal law applies to the apartment complex and smokers have to go outside the gates to smoke.
There is no such law. An apartment manager might tell you that just to get you to cooperate, but there's no actual law requiring that. However, as per the Fair Housing Act, if one tenant has breathing problems and another nearby tenant smokes, they can force the smoking tenant to move to another unit and/or move out of the complex entirely. If the landlord doesn't comply and doesn't forcibly move that tenant, they can get sued.
The apartment I used to live in had rules requiring that all smoking happen off premises, which was just their own bylaw that you had to agree to when you signed your lease. However, the one I live at now doesn't; they just have to be in certain designated areas.
No matter what though, in the event of any kind of dispute, the law (rightfully, IMO) tends to discriminate against the smoker's civil rights if they conflict with that of a nonsmoker's civil rights.
There's also insurance issues.
Apartments that totally ban smoking get discounts on it, since they've banned a major source of fires.
Smoking bans are generally market based, not law based.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
i'll offer you $400 for the house
No, the question is whether they should be regulated. Appraisals have specific regulations, so if people are using this service in lieu of actual appraisal services...
To me, this seems a bit like Uber claiming "we're not a taxi service" while blatantly offering a slightly different sort of taxi service. Just because they claim "this isn't an appraisal service" doesn't mean it actually *isn't* an appraisal service. They may end up winning if there's a legal definition of "appraisal" that they don't match, of course. I really don't know enough about appraisals or this case to have much of an opinion.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.