TSI Fraud & FTC vs. LREAB
233 39 11
Amrock, Inc, formerly Title Source (TSI Appraisal) was ordered to pay House Canary $706 MILLION in damages for theft of intellectual property and fraud.
Bottom line, there was a 7 week trial with a 12 person jury. Amrock (Title Source) was found guilty of theft and fraud unanimously!
Amrock (Title Source) plans on appealing the verdict.
Housing Wire has an in-depth article with lots of details. See it here.
Things to ponder on:
Should Amrock’s amc license be revoked due to this guilty verdict?
Should appraisers and the public trust a company guilty of fraud and theft?
Could appraisers win a law suit for theft of our appraisal data in Collateral Underwriter?
The full truth behind TSI’s scheme is sinister: notwithstanding TSI’s explicit promises to HouseCanary to the contrary, TSI was attempting to reverse engineer, recreate, and mimic HouseCanary’s software, models (including HouseCanary’s AVM, similarity score model and complexity score model), analytics, value reports, and algorithms–using HouseCanary’s software, data, modeling techiniques, data formats, reports and forms in violation of the plain language of the software license and nondisclosure agreements between the parties.
While gathering confidential data and proprietary reports from HouseCanary under the guise of Amendment One to the MSA Agreement, TSI’s primary focus was on using HouseCanary’s data and model outputs to develop TSI’s own AVM. Members of TSI’s data science team quickly realized that HouseCanary’s data and products were far superior than anything that TSI was licensing, and sought to learn what was behind the sophisticated HouseCanary algorithms so that TSI could develop its own “Title Source Automated Valuation Model,” including a Value Report and a similarity score that were direct copies of HouseCanary’s offerings…
As of Wednesday March 14, 2018, the FTC vs LREAB case has been updated. Here are the highlights:
Judge denys motion from Clear Capital to quash the subpeona. See the order here.
Judge denies the FTC motion claiming LREAB waived privilege. See the order here.
There are other documents and motions of interest that can be found on the public view of the case here.