As left-leaning Matt Stoller noted as cited in the report provided in Part I by right-leaning the WND News Center, Google violated the tying provision of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. As regular and detail-minded readers of MHProNews may recall, that tying provision is what consumer advocate and antitrust researcher Samuel Strommen cited as an example of an apparent antitrust violation by Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) owned 21st Mortgage Corporation, a sister brand to BRK owned Clayton Homes.
In Part II, near the end of that segment of this report, is the following from Google’s Gemini.
Antitrust Cases: In antitrust cases, a pattern of behavior can be highly relevant to establish anticompetitive intent, the existence of a conspiracy, or the monopolization of a market. Courts often look at a series of actions over time to understand the impact on competition.
Part I from the WND News Center to MHProNews is the following
Federal judge: Google runs an illegal monopoly
Rules its schemes violate the Sherman Act and have harmed consumers
By Bob Unruh
In a blow to tech giant Google, a move that could be a prelude to a breakup of the giant money-making machine, a federal judge has concluded that it operates an illegal monopoly over two markets related to digital advertising tech.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia found that Google is in violation of the Sherman Act because it dominates the online publisher ad server market and the ad-exchange market that connects ad buyers to sellers.
Google has illegally built “monopoly power” with its web advertising business, a federal judge ruleshttps://t.co/a5tnkNh9iF
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) April 17, 2025
Judge rules Google illegally monopolized ad tech, opening door to potential breakup https://t.co/pZBRKPVGKn
— TechCrunch (@TechCrunch) April 17, 2025
A report from New York Post said the judge found that the corporation’s antics “substantially harmed” customers.
The judge wrote, “Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anticompetitive practices on its customers and eliminating desirable product features.”
The ruling continued, “In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”
The report explained the Department of Justice has expressed the desire for the court to force Google to sell of its digital advertising operations, including Google Ad Manager.
“Remedies” will be taken up in a second phase of the trial.
Explained the Post, “The ruling is another major legal blow for Google. Last year, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that Google has an illegal monopoly over the online search market.”
—
Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary
1) MHProNews has reported for years on the topic of monopolization and antitrust, as it relates to manufactured housing, but also as it is playing out in the broader U.S. economy. It is worth mentioning that antitrust action in Europe and elsewhere is also seemingly on the rise with respect to some of these same big tech brands, such as Google or Meta/Facebook. In no particular order of importance are the following items, starting with this video by left-leaning CBS News to illustrate what Democrats are doing and what some left-leaning media are saying about it. Note that according to left-leaning Nate Silver, AOC – Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, NY-D congressional representative – may have the early lead for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Note that multiple Democratic presidential hopeful, self-described socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is on this so-called “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. It is as if Sanders is handing of his mantle to Rep. Cortez in a very public manner.
2) While the theme is “Fighting Oligarchy,” the lingo is about the power of dark money groups and billionaires. It is arguably fraught with risk from the Democratic perspective, because Democrats have long had the financial advantage with billionaires, including in the 2024 election when some 80 billionaires supported the ticket of Kamala Harris (D) and Tim Walz (D) vs. the ultimate victors, “45th & 47th” President Donald J. Trump (R) and his V.P. J.D. Vance (R). Reportedly, some 50 billionaires supported Trump and Vance.
When MHProNews began to spotlight this issue – the all-to-common link between the uber wealthy, their corporate and nonprofit interests, and support for the Democratic Party – it was relatively cutting-edge insights. While it was apparent to those with eyes to see, it wasn’t as much reported on by much of mainstream media. That said, as time marched on, the evidence for that pattern grew to the point that mainstream media began to on occasion make a similar point. The report linked below was early on in the Biden-Harris era, but MHProNews reported on examples of that in the Obama-Biden (D) era.
What became apparent in the 2024 campaign was that the move of ‘moderately Democrat’ supporter Elon Musk into support for former Democrat Donald J. Trump caused even more outrage than when Musk bought Twitter and ultimately began to rebrand it as X.com. Musk was a Democratic supporter; he produced electric vehicles (EVs) that Democrats said would ‘help save the planet’ from so-called ‘climate change.’ By moving in support toward Trump (R) in the 2024 election cycle, Musk put a target on his own back and on his own business interests. Tesla and even individual Tesla vehicles have become the target of leftist outrage, including acts of violence.
But the seeds for that were already there years before. Warren Buffett, George Soros, and other billionaires that support leftist causes have witnessed their support for groups like Indivisible, which in turn has been charged with astroturf style protests where people are paid to show up on behalf of a cause. That includes organizations such as MHAction, which has become familiar to manufactured housing industry readers of MHProNews and MHLivingNews. These are evidence-based reports grounded in factual realities, such as the flow of money from leftist billionaires like Buffett, Soros, or William “Bill” Gates III into specific organizations that in turn used the money in ways that may undermine Trump and/or aspects of our profession.
3) Let’s be clear. It is yet to be determined if Trump’s pick for HUD Secretary, Eric Scott Turner, will in fact do what his 21st century predecessors in both major parties have all failed to do.
Namely, enforce the “enhanced preemption” provision of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Act, 2000 Reform Law).
But at least Turner has met face-to-face with a delegation from the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) to discuss the problematic history of the only occasional enforcement of federal “enhanced preemption” under the 2000 Reform Law. By having that meeting, there is at least hope that MHARR’s efforts may bear substantive results that can help thwart the suppression of the industry by outsiders and insiders, the later of whom appear to believe that it is in their firm’s interest to keep the industry underperforming as part of their moat strategy.
After all, it is clear that Democrats when they were in power WOULD NOT enforce what their own House Democratic colleagues called for in a letter to Bush-era (R) HUD Secretary Mel Martinez.
As MHProNews has previously reported, the term “monopoly” isn’t even found on the public side of the MHI website. By contrast the term “monopoly” is used several times on the MHARR website.
4) Not only has MHI downplayed, distracted from, or ignored the problem of monopoly power as it applies to the manufactured home industry, or to the broader economy, but so too have MHI linked bloggers and trade media.
5) Google has now been twice declared to have “monopoly” power in an antitrust violating manner over critical aspects of modern American society. Namely, big tech’s access to information (search) and over online ads. Big tech can and does appear to favor this or that news source over others. They can throttle or boost the facts or interest in a topic. It is a mistake to ignore the Google case. Indeed, as MHProNews previously reported, in board rooms across the country, attorneys have advised the c-suite on the ramifications of the ruling.
As MHProNews has noted, the infamous 21st Mortgage Corporation letter signed by Tim Williams is an apparent case of tying between 21st and Clayton Homes. Click that link and follow the prompts to see that letter. Click here and follow the prompts to see what the apparent impact of that letter was on the manufactured home industry in the 21st century. As Strommen said, while Clayton, 21st, or Berkshire have not yet been taken to court for that apparent violation, that doesn’t mean that such action may come. Because it appears to be a pattern of behavior, rather than a onetime event, the DOJ’s standards say that the statutes of limitation do not begin to ‘run’ until the final antitrust violating act occurs.
6) As a relevant and related programming notice (teaser), there is new third-party research into the manufactured home industry from a new source. MHProNews plans to do a report in the near future.
So, there is a growing body of evidence from an array of sources that specific (not all) companies that are members of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) appear to be guilty of behaving in a fashion that violates antitrust, RICO, and other laws that may include the Hobbs Act, among others. For example, as recently as this week, MHProNews has heard from residents who are living in a land-lease community operated by a higher-profile member of MHI. They and an attorney are reportedly discussing their legal options. Per leaders of that resident group, they have found the research on MHLivingNews/MHProNews (and more recently on the “Reality Check” series for this Patch) to be useful.
7) When asked about the reasonable potential for an antitrust action in manufactured housing, this is what xAI’s Grok provided as a revised analysis (the original was overall useful, but had one factual glitch which the following one addressed).
I like the thrust of that analysis but there appears to be a factual error. I’m not aware of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders making a referral to the DOJ and FTC, but I am aware of the Representatives Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison making such a referral: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ClaytonHomesNearMonopolisticGripLendingMinorityBorrowersSeekingManufacturedHomesQuoteMaxineWatersEmanuelCleaverKeithEllisonMikeCapuanoPhotosMHProNewsLogo.jpg double check that part of your report and rerun your response, linking the relevant items that support your findings and conclusions. For example, link that quote from then Ast AG Kanter: “Training a machine to break the law is still breaking the law”
Corrected Analysis of Potential Antitrust Enforcement in the Manufactured Housing Industry
Corrected Analysis of Potential Antitrust Enforcement in the Manufactured Housing IndustryThe factors cited—Google’s antitrust losses, alleged market manipulation in manufactured housing, the 2018 referral by Representatives Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Emanuel Cleaver, and Mike Capuano to the DOJ and CFPB regarding Clayton Homes’ “near monopoly,” and antitrust lawsuits against Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) member community operators using Datacomp—provide strong grounds to suggest that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), or state antitrust enforcers may pursue a manufactured housing industry-focused case targeting specific MHI member firms, such as Clayton Homes or Datacomp users. Each factor is analyzed below, supported by hot-linked sources and parallels to recent antitrust enforcement trends. The analysis evaluates the likelihood of enforcement and the potential targeting of MHI-affiliated firms.
1. Google’s Antitrust Losses as a Precedent
Google’s losses in two major antitrust cases in 2024 signal a heightened federal and state commitment to challenging dominant firms. In United States v. Google LLC (2023), the DOJ and eight states proved Google illegally monopolized the advertising technology market, violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A separate 2020 case found Google guilty of monopolizing the search engine market through exclusionary agreements, with remedies pending in 2025. These victories demonstrate enforcers’ willingness to tackle complex markets and pursue structural remedies, such as divestitures.
Relevance to Manufactured Housing: The manufactured housing industry shares similarities with tech markets, particularly in consolidation and data-driven practices. Allegations of market manipulation via platforms like Datacomp resemble Google’s use of proprietary data to exclude competitors. Google’s cases embolden enforcers to investigate industries with concentrated power, such as manufactured housing, where Clayton Homes dominates production and lending. The precedent suggests the DOJ may probe Clayton’s alleged “near monopoly” or MHI members’ coordinated practices.
Source: Reuters on Google Antitrust Cases
2. Alleged Market Manipulation in Manufactured Housing
Evidence of market manipulation in manufactured housing includes a “moat” strategy, attributed to Berkshire Hathaway’s Clayton Homes, which allegedly suppresses production to facilitate acquisitions of smaller competitors. The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) reported a 21% production decline in 2023 (89,169 homes vs. 112,882 in 2022), despite rising housing demand, as documented in a MHProNews analysis. This decline suggests artificial supply constraints, potentially benefiting consolidators.
Antitrust Implications: Such practices align with Sherman Act violations, including monopolization (Section 2) and collusion (Section 1). The Clayton Act prohibits mergers that substantially lessen competition. If Clayton Homes or MHI members are found to coordinate pricing or limit supply, as alleged in a Patch article, this could trigger DOJ or FTC scrutiny. The DOJ’s RealPage case, discussed below, provides a model for investigating algorithmic collusion in housing markets.
Source: MHProNews on Antitrust and Manufactured Housing
3. Democratic Lawmakers’ Referral to DOJ and CFPB
In 2018, Representatives Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Emanuel Cleaver, and Mike Capuano sent a letter to the DOJ and CFPB, alleging Clayton Homes’ “near monopolistic grip” on manufactured housing production and lending, particularly harming minority borrowers. The referral, documented in a MHProNews article, highlights Clayton’s dominance through subsidiaries like 21st Mortgage and Vanderbilt Mortgage, accusing them of predatory practices and market exclusion. This political pressure, combined with the Biden administration’s focus on housing affordability, increases the likelihood of federal investigation.
Enforcement Likelihood: The referral invokes the DOJ’s Sherman Act authority and the FTC’s mandate to address “unfair methods of competition.” The CFPB could investigate lending practices that exclude competitors or harm consumers, similar to the FTC’s case against Amazon. The documented referral provides a foundation for the DOJ to initiate a probe, especially given parallels to RealPage’s data-sharing violations.
Source: MHProNews on Lawmakers’ Referral
4. Antitrust Suits Against MHI Members Using Datacomp
In 2023, multiple class-action antitrust lawsuits targeted MHI member community operators, alleging they used Datacomp’s appraisal and pricing software to coordinate rent increases in manufactured home communities, mirroring the DOJ’s case against RealPage. The RealPage lawsuit, filed in August 2024 and reported by ProPublica, accuses the company of facilitating price-fixing by sharing nonpublic landlord data via algorithms, violating Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter stated, “Training a machine to break the law is still breaking the law,” emphasizing that algorithmic collusion is illegal (DOJ Press Release). The Datacomp lawsuits, covered in a Patch article, involve operators like Frank Rolfe’s firms, suggesting a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy with Datacomp as the hub.
Parallels to RealPage: The DOJ’s RealPage suit establishes that algorithmic price-fixing is per se illegal. The Datacomp lawsuits indicate a similar pattern, increasing the risk of federal or state enforcement against MHI members. A Holland & Knight analysis notes the DOJ’s focus on information-sharing as anticompetitive, directly applicable to Datacomp’s alleged role.
Source: DOJ on RealPage Lawsuit
5. Broader Antitrust Enforcement Trends
Recent antitrust enforcement trends support the feasibility of a manufactured housing case. The DOJ and FTC have prioritized housing-related cases, as seen in the RealPage lawsuit and a January 2025 amended complaint against six landlords, per a DOJ press release. State attorneys general, including those in Arizona and Maryland, are active in algorithmic pricing cases, as noted in a Hogan Lovells report. The 2023 withdrawal of “safe harbor” guidelines for information exchanges heightens scrutiny of platforms like Datacomp.
State AG Involvement: The 2023 State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act empowers state AGs to choose favorable venues, enhancing their ability to pursue cases. With 11 states involved in the RealPage suit, states like Florida, a manufactured housing hub, could lead or join a case against MHI members, as suggested in a MHProNews article.
Source: Hogan Lovells on State AGs
Conclusion
The cited factors—Google’s antitrust losses, alleged market manipulation, the 2018 referral by Representatives Waters, Ellison, Cleaver, and Capuano, and Datacomp-related lawsuits—collectively indicate a high likelihood of DOJ, FTC, or state antitrust enforcement in the manufactured housing industry. Google’s cases demonstrate enforcers’ readiness to challenge dominant firms, while the RealPage precedent, underscored by Kanter’s statement, directly applies to Datacomp’s alleged price coordination. The lawmakers’ referral provides political and evidentiary impetus, and ongoing class actions against MHI members offer a foundation for potential probes. The industry’s consolidation, coupled with housing affordability pressures, aligns with federal and state priorities. Firms like Clayton Homes and Datacomp users among MHI members face significant risk of investigation for monopolization or algorithmic collusion.
Recommendations for Monitoring:
-
Follow DOJ and FTC announcements on housing-related enforcement.
-
Track state AG activities in Florida and other manufactured housing-heavy states.
-
Monitor developments in Datacomp-related class actions for federal adoption.
—
The PDF of those completed Q&As with xAI’s Grok are linked here.
8) Let’s link some recent and arguably relevant reports. The DOJ item that quoted Kanter in the RealPage case media release is linked here.
9) The irony may be that several key points in an antitrust suit targeting specific firms in MHVille could be provided by publicly available remarks and statements. There are already ample sources to start such an action, based not on mere speculation, but rather which are grounded in facts, evidence, and legally logical inferences based on those facts and evidence. Patterns of behavior can be admissible in court.
With that in mind, consider this Q&A with Gemini.
New topic, Gemini. Can evidence of years of patterns of behavior relative to a potential legal case be admissible in court? For example. Let’s presume that an antitrust case was launched by state and/or federal officials targeting the involvement of higher profile members of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI). It is a matter of record that MHI is aware of and was involved with the enacting of federal laws, which if they were routinely and robustly enforced, would broadly benefit manufactured housing industry growth, correct? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ExecutiveSummaryConsolidatingFragmentedIndustryManufacturedHousingInstituteMergersAcquisitionsMHProNewsFactCheck4.14.2025-scaled.jpg and https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/inexcusable-and-major-problem-exclusive-mhlivingnews-question-and-answer-qa-with-mark-weiss-j-d-president-and-ceo-of-manufactured-housing-association-for-regulatory-reform-mharr/ and https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/mhpronews-qa-with-danny-ghorbani/duty-to-serve-mh/ and https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/manufactured-housing-association-for-regulatory-reform-mharr-april-14-2025-washington-update-an-exclusive-report-and-analysis/ It seems to me that MHI seriously meant what they said: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ManufacturedHousingInstituteMissionStatementPerIRSform990SignedByRichardDickJennisonPresCEOManHousingInstMHProNewsFactCheck.jpg https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ManufacturedHousingInstituteFactCheckClaimRepresentAllSegmentsOfManufacturedHousingOrFactoryBuiltHousingMHProNews.jpg then they would be focused on working with MHARR to get enhanced preemption and DTS and stopping the DOE energy rule to be accomplished realties. But instead, MHI is oddly working with the competitors of the manufactured home industry in ways that arguably run counter to organic growth minded firms while benefiting those firms that say that zoning barriers and NIMBYism are benefits to their business models. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/cats-out-manufactured-housing-institute-housing-coalition-letter-to-congress-fact-check-analysis-reveals-what-mhi-nar-nahb-mba-others-did-didnt-request-ai-affordable-housing-surprises-await/ and https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/YouDoNotTakeYearsDesignBuildaLoopingRampOntoaBridgeForAnElevatedHighwayThatCirclesaCityWhenAllYouHaveToDoIsWalkAcrossTheStreet.LATonyKovachQuoteEnforceExistingManufacturedHousingLaws.jpg and https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DavidPGochJD-attorneyPhotoWebsterChamberlainBeanLOGO-quoteMHI-ActivelyMonitorsUntrueDisparagingStatementsMHProNewsQuotableQuote.png With evidence like that and the unchallenged recent reports published by MHProNews and MHARR, isn’t there a reasonable argument to be made that MHI corporate and staff leaders know what the laws are, because that is part of their jobs, and the fact that they haven’t used legal action or more effective lobbying is indicative that corporate and senior staff leaders at MHI have no sincere desire to take the steps that would bring about organic growth? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/pacific-legal-foundation-spotlights-scotus-legal-victory-for-manufactured-homeowner-george-sheetz-american-dream-is-built-on-property-rights-why-have-we-forgotten-that-and-mhi-mhville-fea/ and https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/unpacking-mharrs-washington-d-c-report-with-analysis-reveals-info-on-key-manufactured-housing-industry-topics-mhi-website-currently-lacks-mhville/ See if those items are supported by known evidence, logically consistent with known facts, and fit like puzzle pieces to form a proverbial picture that helps explain the behavior of Manufactured Housing Institute leadership in much of the 21st century? And if so, doesn’t that fit the kid of behavior that could merit state and/or federal antitrust action?
Admissibility of Patterns of Behavior:
- Habit and Routine Practice: Under rules of evidence (such as Federal Rule of Evidence 406), evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion, the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.
- A habit describes a person’s regular response to a repeated specific situation (e.g., always checking mirrors before changing lanes).
- Routine practice refers to the regular conduct of an organization.
- This type of evidence is seen as more reliable than character evidence because it focuses on specific, repeated actions rather than general disposition.
- Character Evidence: Generally, character evidence (evidence of a person’s general propensity or disposition) is not admissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with that character on a particular occasion, especially in criminal cases against the defendant (unless the defendant brings it up first). However, there are exceptions, particularly in civil cases where character is directly in issue (e.g., defamation).
- Prior Bad Acts: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is generally not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident (Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)).
- Antitrust Cases: In antitrust cases, a pattern of behavior can be highly relevant to establish anticompetitive intent, the existence of a conspiracy, or the monopolization of a market. Courts often look at a series of actions over time to understand the impact on competition.
Regarding the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and potential antitrust issues:
Based on the information and links you provided, here’s an analysis of your points:
- MHI’s Awareness of and Involvement with Federal Laws: The documents you linked, particularly the MHARR Q&A and Washington updates, along with the MHI mission statement, suggest that MHI is indeed aware of federal laws like the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) of 2000, the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate, and the ongoing DOE energy rule. MHI’s mission statement also indicates a commitment to industry growth.
- Alleged Lack of Action on Key Laws: Your argument is that if MHI genuinely aimed for organic growth benefiting a broad range of manufactured housing firms, they would be more actively working with MHARR to push for robust enforcement of enhanced preemption under the MHIA, full implementation of DTS for chattel lending, and potentially opposing aspects of the DOE energy rule that could disproportionately affect the industry.
- Concerns about MHI’s Collaborations: You highlight MHI’s involvement in housing coalitions that include competitors of the traditional manufactured housing sector and suggest that some of these entities benefit from the zoning barriers and NIMBYism that hinder organic growth of the industry.
- Interpretation of Inaction: You propose that MHI’s apparent lack of aggressive legal action or lobbying on issues like enhanced preemption and DTS could indicate a lack of sincere desire for widespread organic growth among its leadership.
- Consistency and Plausibility: You ask if this pattern of behavior is supported by evidence, logically consistent, and fits a picture of MHI leadership’s actions in the 21st century. Based on the provided links and your analysis, a reasonable argument can be made that there is a pattern of MHI publicly stating goals of industry growth while seemingly not prioritizing or effectively pursuing the full potential of federal laws designed to achieve that growth. Their collaborations with entities that may not share the same vision of organic growth for all segments of the industry could also be seen as part of this pattern.
Potential for Antitrust Action:
Whether this pattern of behavior could merit state and/or federal antitrust action is a complex legal question. Antitrust laws generally aim to prevent anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers and restricts fair competition.
To establish an antitrust violation, authorities would likely need to demonstrate:
- Anticompetitive Intent or Effect: That MHI’s actions (or inactions) were intended to harm competition or have had an actual anticompetitive effect in the manufactured housing market. This could involve showing that their behavior has protected certain market players at the expense of others or stifled innovation and growth that would benefit consumers.
- Market Power: That MHI or the entities they are allegedly acting in concert with possess significant market power.
- Conspiracy or Combination: Evidence of an agreement or concerted action among multiple parties to restrain trade.
The pattern of behavior you describe, if proven, could potentially contribute to building a case for anticompetitive intent or effect. For example, if it could be shown that MHI’s actions have systematically hindered the growth of independent manufacturers or retailers by not advocating for the enforcement of laws that would benefit them, while simultaneously aligning with the interests of larger, consolidating entities, this could raise antitrust concerns.
It’s crucial to understand that:
- Antitrust cases are highly fact-specific and require extensive legal analysis.
- The interpretation of intent and effect can be challenging.
- The links you provided offer a perspective, but a legal investigation would involve gathering a wide range of evidence, including internal MHI communications, market data, and testimony from industry participants.
In conclusion, while evidence of a pattern of behavior can be admissible and relevant in antitrust cases, whether the specific pattern you’ve described concerning MHI would lead to successful state or federal action depends on a thorough legal and factual analysis of anticompetitive intent, effect, market power, and conspiracy. Your analysis presents a plausible argument that such a pattern exists and warrants further scrutiny.
MHProNews notes that the screen capture documenting accuracy of the Q&A above is linked here.
10) In fairness and for balance, MHProNews next asked Gemini to play devil’s advocate. What possible arguments could MHI leaders advance that fit all of the known facts? Here is that Q&A.
Gemini, let’s play devil’s advocate for a few moments. MHARR has directly and publicly engaged with MHI in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as some of MHI’s own documents reveal. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/FannieMaeFreddieMacMHI-MHARR-VPBruceSavage2004-ManufacturedHousingFinance-MHIA-CrossMods2023-07-28_06-03-54MHProNewsFactCheckAnalysis.png which specifically names Bruce Savage, a former MHI VP https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BruceSavageVPManufacturedHousingInstLogoUnleashingSalesPerceptionIsRealitySavageReportRoperReportGoodBadManuHousingInstLogoAARPMartyLavinStrikeAgainMHMarketsStocksUpdates.jpg and https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MHI-MHARR-ImplementationOfManufacturedHousingImprovementActof2000-MHIA-EnhancedPreemptionMHProNewsDocument.png Savage is one of the MHI VPs https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/MissingManufacturedHousingInstituteVicePresidentsListFromMHIwebsiteFactCheckVP-MHProNews.jpg and MHI Presidents/CEOs that have had their names purged from the public side of the MHI website. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/AnnBurkhartJ.D.ChrisStinebertGailCardwellThayerLongFormerManufacturedHousingInstitutePresidentsCEOs-MHProNewsFactCheckAnalysisCommentary.png https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/literally-historic-former-manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-president-ceo-chris-s-stinebert-remarks-embarrassingly-upend-current-mhi-narratives-why-mhi-purged-plus-mhville-markets-upda So, there is no denying that https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/edward-hussey-to-be-clear-madam-chairwoman-there-is-nothing-wrong-with-the-2000-law-the-manufactured-housing-improvement-act-doesnt-need-to-be-amended-the-issue-is-implementation/ So, there is no denying that MHI is institutionally aware MHARR, which they previously collaborated with, correct? That said, let’s consider what other arguments could be forged that would explain years of MHI leadership inaction on issues that they have paid lip service to for one to two plus decades? It isn’t like everyone at MHI has suddenly lost their awareness of how the 2000 Reform Law, enhanced preemption, or the Duty to Serve came about, correct? Because MHI and MHARR more or less collaborated on those legislative efforts. It isn’t like MHARR has engaged in some apparent and public behavior that has suddenly run contrary to the interest of getting “enhanced preemption” or the Duty to Serve manufactured housing lending, correct? But by stark contrast, people like Doug Ryan while with CFED turned Prosperity Now, specifically accused MHI of anticompetitive behavior that benefited some of their larger brands. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/epic-kevin-clayton-moat-rant-analysis-lesli-gooch-debate-defense-doug-ryan-charge-end-clayton-monopoly-over-manufactured-housing-breaching-buffett-berkshire-clayton-monopolistic-moat-method/ Arica Young with the Lincoln Institue has said that getting manufactured housing “unleashed” requires overcoming zoning barriers and getting more competitive financing for manufactured home buyers, correct? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/vigorous-debate-not-censorship-or-throttling-unpacking-arica-young-cato-lincoln-institute-unleashing-manufactured-housing-noble-goal-but-missing-key-facts-facts/ The Lincoln Institute is part of the Underserved Markets Coaltion pushes for Duty to Serve enforcement of more comeptitive chattel lending that has attracted attention and includes MHI members ROC USA and Next Step, correct? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UnderservedHousingMarketsCoalitionUnderservedMortgageMarketsCoalitionBlueprintForMoreDutyToServeDTSLendingManufacturedHomesRuralUnderservedMarketsMHProNews.pdf Meaning, what other arguments can be crafted to explain MHI’s behavior, other than the fact that it appears to benefit their consolidation focused members who have openly said in public documents that they want to consolidate what Nathan Smith linked Flagship Communities (prominent at MHI) called a fragmented industry? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/pulling-back-the-veil-on-mhi-mhv-connected-nathan-smith-kurt-keeney-and-flagship-communities-reit-fact-check-and-analysis-of-flagships-ir-pitch-tsx-mhc-u-plus-mhville-markets-u/ Did MHI leaders all suffer amnesia? Have they all lost their common sense if their goal is to foster organic growth? Or was former MHI award winner Marty Lavin apparently correct when he said that the big boys at MHI only join the industry’s interests when it suits their own? https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MartinMartyLavinManufacturedHousingInstituteWebsiteSearch12.42PM11.17.2022LavinLashesMHI.jpg Try to create an argument that MHI could craft that fits all of the known facts, vs. the increasingly evident argument advanced by MHARR, MHProNews, MHLivingNews, Strommen, Lavin, Ryan and others that are MHI critics?
Now, let’s put on our devil’s advocate hats and try to craft arguments MHI might use to explain their years of apparent inaction on robustly pursuing enhanced preemption and DTS, while also engaging with entities that might seem to have conflicting interests:
Argument 1: A Broader, More Strategic Approach
- Focus on Holistic Housing Solutions: MHI might argue that their involvement in broader housing coalitions reflects a strategic effort to position manufactured housing as a key solution within the larger affordable housing landscape. By working with diverse stakeholders, including those in site-built and multifamily housing, they aim to influence overall housing policy in ways that indirectly benefit manufactured housing.
- Long-Term Relationship Building: Engaging with these groups could be seen as a long-term strategy to build relationships and understanding, potentially leading to future collaborations on issues directly benefiting manufactured housing. They might argue that alienating potential allies by solely focusing on internal industry battles could be counterproductive in the long run.
- Addressing Multiple Barriers: MHI could contend that zoning and financing are just two of many barriers to industry growth. Their efforts might be spread across various fronts, including regulatory reform, workforce development, and public perception campaigns, making it appear as if they are not solely focused on preemption and DTS.
Argument 2: Navigating Internal Industry Divisions
- Representing Diverse Members: MHI might emphasize that they represent a diverse membership with potentially conflicting interests. Some larger members might prioritize consolidation and economies of scale, while smaller members focus on organic growth through better financing and zoning. MHI could argue that they must strike a delicate balance to serve all their members effectively, which might explain a seemingly less aggressive stance on certain issues.
- Strategic Prioritization: MHI could claim they strategically prioritize issues based on their likelihood of success and the overall benefit to the majority of their members. They might argue that pursuing enhanced preemption or DTS with full force has faced significant political or economic headwinds, leading them to focus on other areas where they see more immediate progress.
- Behind-the-Scenes Efforts: MHI could assert that they are actively working on these issues behind the scenes through lobbying, legal analysis, and negotiations that are not always publicly visible. They might argue that a more public and confrontational approach could be less effective in the long run.
Argument 3: Evolving Market Realities
- Adapting to Market Consolidation: MHI might argue that the market has naturally been consolidating, and their efforts are geared towards ensuring the long-term stability and success of the industry within this evolving landscape. They might frame their engagement with larger players as a pragmatic response to the current market dynamics.
- Focus on Lender Engagement: Regarding DTS, MHI could argue that they are actively working to educate and engage lenders to participate in the program, acknowledging that lender participation is crucial for its success, regardless of the mandate itself. They might portray this as a more practical approach than solely focusing on regulatory enforcement.
Argument 4: Misinterpretation by Critics
- Differing Definitions of “Growth”: MHI could argue that their definition of industry growth might differ from that of their critics. They might focus on overall shipment numbers, investment in the industry, or improved building standards, rather than solely on the number of independent businesses or the ease of entry for new consumers.
- Attributing External Factors: MHI could attribute the lack of more significant progress on preemption and DTS to external factors beyond their control, such as political gridlock, resistance from local governments, or economic downturns. They might argue that their efforts are being hampered by these broader issues.
Why These Arguments Might Still Fall Short:
While these are potential arguments MHI could make, they often struggle to fully reconcile with the evidence presented by their critics:
- The Lack of Public, Aggressive Action: The absence of high-profile legal challenges or sustained, forceful lobbying campaigns on enhanced preemption and DTS remains a key point of contention.
- The Apparent Alignment with Consolidation Interests: The documented statements from MHI-affiliated companies about the benefits of industry fragmentation and consolidation raise questions about MHI’s true priorities.
- The Continued Existence of MHARR: MHARR’s ongoing advocacy for the same core issues that MHI seemingly underprioritizes suggests a fundamental disagreement on strategy and perhaps goals within the industry.
- The Consistency of Criticisms: The fact that criticisms regarding MHI’s approach come from various sources over an extended period adds weight to the argument that there might be a genuine disconnect between MHI’s stated goals and their actions.
In conclusion, while MHI could craft arguments based on broader strategies, internal complexities, market realities, and differing interpretations, these arguments would need to convincingly address the years of apparent inaction on key federal laws and their engagement with entities whose interests don’t always align with the organic growth of the entire manufactured housing sector. The critics’ narrative, pointing towards a prioritization of consolidation by influential MHI members, currently appears to offer a more consistent explanation for the observed patterns of behavior.
—
So, as Gemini concluded:
The [MHI] critics’ narrative, pointing towards a prioritization of consolidation by influential MHI members, currently appears to offer a more consistent explanation for the observed patterns of behavior.
And as Gemini said at the top of this Q&A.
You’re [MHProNews] right, there’s ample evidence suggesting MHI was and is well aware of MHARR and the history surrounding the MHIA of 2000 and the Duty to Serve mandate. The collaboration in the late 90s and early 2000s is documented, and the ongoing existence of MHARR as a focused advocacy group for the industry’s smaller players further underscores this awareness.
The screen capture documenting that Q&A is linked here.
11) So, to draw towards a conclusion for this report. The Google case is part of an apparent pattern of growing interest in antitrust that at least verbally is getting support from leaders of both major parties. There is also growing evidence of support from the general public in favor of antitrust (anti-monopoly) action.
It should be recalled that the Google suit was launched ruing the first Trump term in office. The MHProNews analysis below is arguably not only still relevant, but has been underscored by the early indicators from the Trump 2nd term (T2).
12) It is not beyond the pale of possibility that either federal and/or state antitrust enforcers could take aim at segments of the manufactured housing industry.
Given that:
a) the affordable housing crisis can’t be solved without millions of more HUD Code manufactured homes,
B) and given that MHI is either operated by the most inept, or apparently quite corrupt, leadership it is an antitrust case waiting to happen.
13) As Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of MHARR told MHProNews in an exclusive comment on these types of issues are the following insights that are like a bow around this presentation.
“The consolidation of key industry sectors is an ongoing and growing concern that MHI has not addressed because doing so would implicate their own members. Such consolidation has negative effects on consumers (and the industry) and is a subject that MHProNews and MHLivingNews are quite right to report on and cover thoroughly. This is important work that no one else in the industry has shown the stomach or integrity to address.”
See the related reports to learn more. Watch for that new research into manufactured housing by a third party that may be one piece of evidence that could in time tip the scales in favor of antitrust action. Stay tuned to the only publications that are properly addressing these topics in manufactured housing, MHProNews and MHLivingNews.
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
Related References:
The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.’
