Tag: monopoly

Is CAI a coercive monopoly? Definitely YES!

Consider the FTC’s lawsuit that Amazon is a coercive monopoly.

The US government and 17 states are suing Amazon in a landmark monopoly case reflecting years of allegations that the e-commerce giant abused its economic dominance and harmed fair competition. Because of Amazon’s dominance in e-commerce, sellers have little option but to accept Amazon’s terms, the FTC alleges.

Amazon is “squarely focused on preventing anyone else from gaining that same critical mass of customers,” FTC Chair Lina Khan told reporters Tuesday. 

In a release, Khan accused Amazon of using “punitive and coercive tactics” to preserve an illegal monopoly. “Amazon is now exploiting its monopoly power to enrich itself . . .  Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition.”

These charges of monopoly and coercive tactics can be applied to the Community Associations Institute’s (CAI) long pattern of conduct with respect to the domination of the homeowners associations industry. In my 40-page complaint to the DOJ in January 2023 I laid out the case that CAI must have its conduct curtailed in the interest of free competition in Housing and in educational services used to maintain its monopoly.

 My recommendations to regulate CAI’s activities to allow for the voice of others to be heard, especially from owners of HOA homes who suffer under the monopoly, as included in my complaint, are listed here:  The need to regulate CAI monopoly.

“A. Regulations on CAI’s monopolistic activities

“B. Regulations on HOA activities in support of CAI monopoly”

What is needed now?  Support my anti-trust complaint against CAI!

Why CAI is the Evil Empire

Advocates, the public in general, the media, and especially state legislatures need to understand the power of the miniscule member CAI that has them conned.  CAI dominates the HOA institution, or as I designate the fragmented collection of HOAs, HOA-Land. My initial research was conducted in 2007 and updated 10 years later in 2017.[1]  I summarize my research on the size of CAI and its membership breakdown below.

The research was based on CAI data and the US Census at that time.  To the point, from the 2017 study:

  1. Being concerned about the frequency of fixed ratios found in (A), I came across data from the CAI Indiana chapter for 2015 and 2016.[2] The percent ‘volunteers’ per HOA for both years was 32.7% and 32.8%, respectively. Very consistent.
  1. Of the 69 M people in HOAs, CAI membership, at most, consists of a miniscule .05% (.00048).
  1. Of the 33,000 CAI members, a minority of some 10,800 are ‘volunteers’ and not attorneys or managers.
  1. ‘Volunteers’ (CAVL) represent a miniscule .016% (.00016) of HOA members.

In contrast, AARP is a tremendous national powerhouse lobbyist representing, as reported in the 2014 WSJ article, some 37.8 million members.   In contrast, 2010 AARP states membership of 35,700,000, and that’s  36% of the 50 plus population based on the US Census  estimate.

Analyzing CAI’s membership and governing Board of Trustees structure revealed  HOA “volunteers” are in the minority. “That’s about 14% representation by homeowners on the CAI governing body whose membership consists of 60% homeowner “volunteers.”[3]

So, who’s afraid of Virginia Wolf?  We should be!  Look what this miniscule minority managed to achieve over the years!  Please understand, though, CAI is vulnerable and has made adjustments in the past based on published criticisms by advocates.  We must not be afraid to call it what it is, using concrete documents and especially CAI’s own words.

FYI — Outstanding is a complaint filed with the antitrust division of the DOJ alleging that CAI is a monopoly.[4]

References

[1] See CAI miniscule minority dominates public policy (2007); CAI 2016 Factbook: looking into the ‘facts’.

[2] CAI Indiana chapter document.

[3] Who controls CAI and its 50 state HOA lobbying committees? (2012).

[4]  See The need to regulate CAI monopoly. (2023).

 

The need to regulate CAI monopoly

To answer to the question I raised, “Is CAI a coercive HOA monopoly?,” required further research and analysis, which resulted in  finding extensive and strong evidence, gathered from over the years, that CAI is definitely acting in violation of the anti-trust statutes; steps need to be taken to break up the monopoly.  Below are my recommendations to regulate CAI’s activities to allow for the voice of others to be heard, especially from owners of HOA homes who suffer under the monopoly.

A.       Regulations on CAI monopolistic activities

1.       CAI to cease all references and implications that it represents HOAs before the legislature, all government bodies, before the courts and including amicus curiae briefs without express consent to do so;

2.      Require CAI to state that it is a business trade nonprofit, explicitly a 501(c)6 and not an educational entity;

3.      Inform readers that it cannot have HOAs as members since HOAs are consumers of the services provided by the trade group members;

4.      It is actively engaged in lobbying state legislatures on bills favorable to the HOA  and not necessarily to the membership;

5.      Inform owners and the public in general that its attorney members represent the HOA personified by the Board of Directors and not the member.

B.    Regulations on HOA activities in support of CAI monopoly

1.       Similar to representing employees in bargaining with management, propose federal laws that permit and protect HOA members to organize its membership to bargain in good faith for amendments to the governing documents and Rules changes;

2.      Propose legislation that allows for the creation and protection of a national HOA Homeowners Coalition, similar in intent as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB);

3.      To restrict the HOA from interference with the newly established  organized national and state  member entities;

4.      Quarterly inform the membership of the number of directors, officers, managers, and attorneys who are members of CAI;

5.      Publish the total annual amount of spending for CAI dues paid for any HOA members, donations, other fees, and expenditures paid for by the HOA;

6.      Inform the membership that all communications with their attorney are not exempt from disclosure by state law,

7.      and all communications with the HOA attorney constitutes corporate documents that are accessible to the members, unless explicitly exempted under  “Pending or contemplated litigation” apply;

8.     The CC&Rs or Declaration for any planned community, condominium association or homeowners association shall state that, “The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have, and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to be bound by the US and State Constitutions and laws of the State as if it were a local public government entity.”

Is CAI a coercive HOA monopoly?

Community Associations Institute (CAI) dominates themarket for HOA educational services and controls the market around it by means of its extensive lobbying of state legislatures and by holding seminars, conferences and publications extolling its self-serving agenda that promotes the HOA legal structure and scheme; by the support  of state agencies that sponsor CAI seminars and classes, and by private entities trained under the CAI education program – ECHO in California and CALL in Florida, as examples. It has become successful in lessening competition as a result of its “improper conduct.”

A quick review of the internet postings shows (emphasis added),

“[The]  courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist’s success is due to ‘the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.’”

“Coercive monopoly” is defined as:

“A monopoly that is created using extraordinary power such as a government or international agency. For example, a government that grants legal protections to firms that create barriers to entry to prevent competition. Firms commonly lobby governments for rules that protect them from competition.”

With respect to CAI, a tax-exempt nonprofit, can it be charged as a monopoly? It is a well-established fact that no state has granted  CAI a protective government monopoly exclusion —  the right to lessen competition. And that includes local governments in several states that openly support and encourage the CAI HOA program; some states have actually employed CAI as its authority to educate the public regarding HOAs.

The  answer is YES according to the following Supreme Court case. The case addresses the instance where  the state assigns a “governmental monopoly” (making it a state-actor) to an entity (which HOAs are not), but must explicitly state that the entity has the right to lessen competition,

“Under this Court’s state-action immunity doctrine, when a local governmental entity acts pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition, it is exempt from scrutiny under the federal antitrust laws. In this case, we must decide whether a Georgia law that creates special-purpose public entities called hospital authorities and gives those entities general corporate powers, including the power to acquire hospitals, clearly articulates and affirmatively expresses a state policy to permit acquisitions that substantially lessen competition. Because Georgia’s grant of general corporate powers to hospital authorities does not include permission to use those powers anticompetitively, we hold that the clear-articulation test is not satisfied, and state-action immunity does not apply.”

 (F.T.C. v. Phoebe Putney Health System (133 S.Ct. 1003 (2013)).

CALL TO ACTION

I believe the case can be made for a CAI monopoly and for the Feds to  investigate (Citizens Complaint Center, Antitrust Division, DOJ),  and to file an appropriate antitrust lawsuit ASAP.