> That sure sounds like an assertion of what a court or jury would actually decide, and it's far too strong. (I am a lawyer, and there's almost never a justification for being this absolute.)
It's obviously an opinion piece, the way it's written does not communicate that it's attempting to be informative other than collecting a number of other more informative articles, and offering the author's viewpoint. Contrary to what some on here believe, it is alright to both bring information forth about a topic and express an opinion on it, and personally I find that type of content much more engaging than exercising false equivalency nonsense and making a stupid company's stupid position look less stupid in the name of "fairness."
> As for Zillow not owning the rights
If it owns the rights or is licensed to exercise the rights, that doesn't change the fact that it has no case. That was my point.
It's obviously an opinion piece, the way it's written does not communicate that it's attempting to be informative other than collecting a number of other more informative articles, and offering the author's viewpoint. Contrary to what some on here believe, it is alright to both bring information forth about a topic and express an opinion on it, and personally I find that type of content much more engaging than exercising false equivalency nonsense and making a stupid company's stupid position look less stupid in the name of "fairness."
> As for Zillow not owning the rights
If it owns the rights or is licensed to exercise the rights, that doesn't change the fact that it has no case. That was my point.