In blockbusting, it is not necessary to prove profit. Which statement best reflects this requirement?

In blockbusting, it is not necessary to prove profit. Which statement best reflects this requirement?

• A. It is not necessary that there was profit
• B. It is always required to show profit
• C. It is irrelevant to the charge
• D. Not necessary that there was profit

Answer: (D)

Blockbusting centers on discriminatory actions and the impact they have—inducing or attempting to induce homeowners to sell by exploiting fear of people from a protected class moving into the neighborhood. The critical point is the discriminatory act and its effect, not whether any profit was actually made. Therefore, you don’t have to prove there was profit for a blockbusting violation to be established. The focus is on the wrongdoing itself—the attempt to influence sale prices through fear of demographic change—rather than on revenue from those actions. This is why the statement that there was no requirement to show profit best reflects how blockbusting is treated under the law.

Blockbusting centers on discriminatory actions and the impact they have—inducing or attempting to induce homeowners to sell by exploiting fear of people from a protected class moving into the neighborhood. The critical point is the discriminatory act and its effect, not whether any profit was actually made. Therefore, you don’t have to prove there was profit for a blockbusting violation to be established. The focus is on the wrongdoing itself—the attempt to influence sale prices through fear of demographic change—rather than on revenue from those actions. This is why the statement that there was no requirement to show profit best reflects how blockbusting is treated under the law.