A Comprehensive Index of Every Antitrust and Commission Lawsuit

Editor’s note: This story was originally published on Dec. 27, 2023. It was updated on Jan. 30, 2024, and again on Dec. 12 to reflect extensive new developments in existing litigation, and to add newly filed lawsuits.

In just over a year, the saga of antitrust lawsuits facing the industry appears to be entering its epilogue—or at the very least, a later chapter. The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) recently received final court approval for its landmark deal, which grants broad immunity from seller (and some buyer) claims regarding how broadly followed rules and policies inflated commissions. Most of the “pile-on lawsuits” (NAR’s term for Burnett copycats) were paused pending that decision, and at least some are expected to be dismissed or otherwise resolved in relatively short order.

Does this mean that legal challenges or court-mandated changes to industry practices are no longer a daily occurrence? Maybe. Does it mean the end of court drama and lawsuits that have the potential to upend your business? Definitely not.

Even as most agents and brokers seek to move on from this era, it remains vitally important to stay ahead of the changes that loom over real estate—a lesson that hopefully most practitioners learned from the original commission lawsuits, which many initially dismissed or ignored. As new lawsuits—some focused on commissions, others aimed at MLS access and still others targeting Clear Cooperation—continue to propagate and advance, there is no excuse for not keeping up with the latest legal threats to the industry.

All cases are federal unless otherwise noted.

* * *

Case title: Sitzer et al v. National Association of Realtors et al (also known as Burnett/Sitzer, or Burnett)

Status: Trial completed in October 2023, jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs (full damages awarded, $1.8 billion). All defendants subsequently settled and have received final approval by court. Multiple appeals of settlements pending before the Eighth Circuit.

Jurisdiction and judge: Western District of Missouri; Judge Stephen R. Bough 

Defendants: NAR, Keller Williams, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX and Anywhere 

Plaintiffs: Homesellers who used five Missouri-based NAR-affiliated MLS between 2015 and 2022

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically focused on the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering.

The big picture: Burnett was the first of the major lawsuits to go to trial, and will likely serve as a bellwether for other commission cases. The two-week, often contentious trial ended with a jury verdict in just over two hours. More lawsuits with similar claims were filed quickly in the wake of the verdict. Keller Williams, HomeServices and NAR settled over the next six months, with the total amount paid by defendants in the case reaching around $1 billion. The DOJ has issued a “statement of interest” in the case, saying it has “concerns” about allegedly anticompetitive practices allowed by or included in the NAR settlement.

* * *

Case title: Gibson v. National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Set for trial in 2027. Certain defendants settled.

Jurisdiction and judge: Western District of Missouri; Judge Stephen R. Bough

Defendants: NAR, Compass, eXp World Holdings (the parent company of eXp), Redfin, Weichert, United Real Estate, Howard Hanna, Douglas Elliman

Plaintiffs: Recent homesellers who used NAR-affiliated MLSs anywhere in the United States

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically focused on the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering. 

The big picture: An identical suit to Burnett, Gibson was filed by the same attorneys within hours of the verdict in that case. This suit makes an identical complaint, but names several other large real estate companies and expands the class to cover the whole country. 

Gibson was later consolidated with the Umpa case, and in July 2024, a trial was set for 2027. 

In October, Judge Bough approved settlement for nine defendants: Compass, The Real Brokerage, At World Properties, Douglas Elliman, Redfin, Engel & Völkers, Realty One Group, HomeSmart Holdings and United Real Estate. The total settlement amounted to about $110.6 million.

Defendant Baird & Warner has also reached a settlement in the case, while both eXp and Weichert settled in the smaller Hooper case and attempted to use this settlement to be dismissed from the Gibson case; both eXp and Weichert were denied by Judge Bough.

* * *

Case title: Moehrl v. National Association of Realtors

Status: All defendants settled, final court approval not yet issued, but defendants and plaintiffs “do not anticipate…any further litigation being needed.”

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Illinois; Judge LaShonda Hunt

Defendants: NAR, Keller Williams, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX and Anywhere  

Plaintiffs: Homesellers who used 20 NAR-affiliated MLSs during a four-year period leading up to the filing of the lawsuit.

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering. 

The big picture: Similar but not identical in substance to Burnett, it was originally filed in 2019. Plaintiffs had estimated potential damages around $13 billion compared to the $1.8 billion judgment in Burnett. Settlements agreed to in Burnett explicitly included claims in this case. Formerly overseen by Judge Andrea Wood, who recused herself in September 2024 due to a personal conflict. The case had previously been scheduled for a trial in early 2025, but appears to be fully resolved with all defendants having settled. In the latest joint status report (filed September 2024), defendants and plaintiffs said they “do not anticipate at this time any further litigation being needed for the claims at issue in the case.”

* * *

Case title: Batton v. The National Association of Realtors et al (formerly known as Leeder v. The National Association of Realtors et al, or Leeder)

Status: Paused for some defendants, trial not yet scheduled and class not certified. Parties have acknowledged previous settlement discussions. 

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Illinois; Judge LaShonda Hunt

Defendants: NAR, Keller Williams, RE/MAX, Anywhere, Long & Foster

Plaintiffs: Homebuyers who used NAR-affiliated MLSs across the country from 1996 to the present (damages demanded for buyers in around 25 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico)

Complaint: That NAR conspired with big brokerages to create rules that inflate commission for buyers, including the participation rule requiring offers of buyer compensating on the MLS, and rules disallowing MLSs from displaying commission offers to consumers.

The big picture: Initially dismissed because the lead plaintiff did not have standing to sue in his state, the case was refiled with new plaintiffs. Notably, Batton is the first suit alleging that buyers rather than sellers are harmed by the current structure of real estate commission sharing, who are “indirect purchasers” under relevant antitrust laws. The suit is also notable for attempting to certify a class going all the way back to the creation of the “participation rule” in 1996, which would significantly increase potential damages. The states where damages are sought are those which allow “indirect purchasers” like homebuyers to seek damages from antitrust violations.

In January 2024, this case was loosely consolidated with Batton et al v. Compass, Inc. et al. Plaintiffs are currently appealing the approval ruling in the Burnett settlements which excluded buyers who also sold from being part of the class. Formerly overseen by Judge Andrea Wood, who recused herself in September 2024 due to a personal conflict.

* * *

Case title: Batton et al v. Compass, Inc. et al

Status: Loosely consolidated with Batton v. The National Association of Realtors et al, paused for some defendants. Class not certified, trial not yet scheduled. Settlement discussions have taken place between some parties.

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Illinois; Judge LaShonda Hunt

Defendants: Compass, eXp, Redfin, Weichert, United Real Estate, Douglas Elliman

Plaintiffs: Homebuyers who used NAR-affiliated MLSs across the country from 1996 to present (damages being demanded in 33 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico)

Complaint: That NAR conspired with big brokerages to create rules that inflate commission for buyers, including the participation rule requiring offers of buyer compensating on the MLS, and rules disallowing MLSs from displaying commission offers to consumers.

The big picture: Filed shortly after the Burnett verdict, the second Batton case is mostly identical to the first, except it names several other large real estate companies, similar to Gibson’s expansion of the claims in Burnett. The suit is also notable for attempting to certify a class going all the way back to the creation of the “participation rule” in 1996, which would significantly increase potential damages. The states where damages are sought are those which allow “indirect purchasers” like homebuyers to seek damages from antitrust violations.

In January 2024, this case was loosely consolidated with Batton v. The National Association of Realtors et al. Formerly overseen by Judge Andrea Wood, who recused herself in September 2024 due to a personal conflict.

***

Case title: Lutz v. HomeServices of America, Inc. et al

Status: Pending motions to dismiss, no class certified. 

Jurisdiction and judge: Florida Southern District; Judge K. Michael Moore

Defendants: HomeServices of America

Plaintiffs: Homebuyers who used NAR-affiliated MLSs across the country.

Complaint: That NAR conspired with HomeServices to create rules that inflate commission for buyers, including the participation rule requiring offers of buyer compensating on the MLS, and rules disallowing MLSs from displaying commission offers to consumers.

The big picture: Filed only a few days after HomeServices was dismissed from Batton v. NAR due to lack of jurisdiction, the lawsuit makes identical claims in a new district to bypass that technicality. 

***

Case title: Davis v. Hanna Holdings, Inc

Status: Pending motions to dismiss, no class certified. 

Jurisdiction and judge: Pennsylvania Eastern District; Judge Wendy Beetlestone

Defendants: Hanna Holdings, parent company of Howard Hanna

Plaintiffs: Homebuyers who used NAR-affiliated MLSs across the country.

Complaint: That NAR conspired with Howard Hanna and others to create rules that inflate commission for buyers, including the participation rule requiring offers of buyer compensating on the MLS, and rules disallowing MLSs from displaying commission offers to consumers.

The big picture: Filed only a few days after Howard Hanna was dismissed from Batton v. Compass due to lack of jurisdiction, the lawsuit makes identical claims in a new district to bypass that technicality. 

* * *

Case Title: Tuccori v. At World Properties, LLC 

Status: Ongoing mediation, settlement to be finalized 

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Illinois; Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins

Defendants: @properties Christie’s International Real Estate

Plaintiffs: Anyone who bought a home that was listed on an MLS using an @properties agent between March 17, 2000 and today.

Complaint: That the defendant engaged in “inflating and concealing commissions paid to real estate brokers,” and that these high commissions are harming homebuyers by increasing “home prices and unnecessarily high costs.” 

The big picture: While similar to many other commission based lawsuits among the industry, this one is actually filed on the buyer’s side rather than the seller’s—joining the ranks of Batton and only a few others. In addition, while @properties is the only defendant named, the suit alleges that NAR is a co-conspirator since @properties is both a member and “heavily intertwined” with the organization, and thereby has benefited from its rules and policies.

In June 2024, the defendants and plaintiffs attended a “productive” mediation session and are in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement, although the company had previously settled in the Gibson case. 

* * *

Case title: The PLS.com, LLC v. The National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Preliminary settlement agreed to with three defendants; NAR dropped from lawsuit without prejudice.

Jurisdiction and judge: Central District of California; Judge John. W. Holcomb

Defendants: NAR, Bright MLS, California Regional MLS (CRMLS), Midwest Real Estate Data, LLC

Plaintiffs: A pocket-listing service startup called ThePLS.com (now operating as TheNLS.com)

Complaint: That NAR and large MLSs monopolized online residential property listing services, and have sought to drive competitors out of the market in violation of antitrust statutes, primarily through adoption of the “Clear Cooperation” policy. 

The big picture: Not a class-action suit and not directly focused on commissions, this suit is notable for directly naming large MLSs as defendants, as most other lawsuits have treated them as ancillary players in a larger conspiracy. Similar but not identical to Top Agent Network, Inc. v. NAR, the case was initially dismissed in 2021, but an appeals court revived it almost a year later. The Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal from NAR. This case also addresses Clear Cooperation and the role of MLSs in alleged antitrust actions directly, and targets MLS operations broadly, claiming that the industry is inefficient and full of redundancies. In January 2024, the MLS defendants came to a preliminary settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, seemingly ending the lawsuit. But a lawyer for NAR later revealed that the organization had struck a “tolling” agreement with plaintiffs, extending the statute of limitations for the alleged illegal conduct and the time period for plaintiffs to restart their claims. 

* * *

Case title: Top Agent Network, Inc. v. NAR, et al

Status: Trial set for November 3, 2025

Jurisdiction and judge: California Northern District; Judge Vince Chhabria

Defendants: NAR

Plaintiffs: A pocket-listing startup called Top Agent Network based in San Francisco, California

Complaint: That NAR specifically blacklisted Top Agent Network, and used the Clear Cooperation policy to monopolize real estate listing services in violation of antitrust statutes.

The big picture: Not a class-action and not directly focused on commissions, this suit is similar but not identical to The PLS.com, LLC v. NAR et al. It makes Clear Cooperation a main focus, alleging that policy is harming consumers and competitors in violation of antitrust statutes. Notably, this suit cites the continued practice of so-called “office exclusive” listings as evidence that NAR’s stated goal in the Clear Cooperation policy (ensuring broad dissemination of listings) is questionable. The case was initially dismissed, but revived in 2023 by an appeals court. The San Francisco Association of REALTORS® was originally a defendant as well, but was dropped later based on an agreement between TAN and NAR regarding jurisdiction.

* * *

Case title: National Association of Realtors v. United States of America et al

Status: Dismissed by D.C. District Court, overturned and remanded by D.C. Circuit, currently appealed to the Supreme Court

Jurisdiction and judge: D.C. District Court; Judge Timothy Kelly

Defendants: United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Antitrust Division

Plaintiffs: NAR 

Complaint: That the DOJ should not be allowed to reopen a civil antitrust inquiry into NAR rules and practices, after closing that investigation in late 2020.

The big picture: The DOJ began seeking to restart its investigation into NAR in early 2021, after initially agreeing to close the inquiry. NAR sued to block the DOJ almost immediately, with Judge Kelly’s ruling for NAR and preventing the DOJ from continuing to scrutinize NAR—focused on many of the same rules and practices at issue in the privately filed lawsuits. A panel of three judges in the D.C. Circuit Court overturned Kelly’s decision in April 2024, allowing the DOJ to continue its inquiry, but NAR quickly appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which has not yet indicated whether it will take up the case. A key factor in the investigation is the new presidential administration, with new personnel at the DOJ potentially choosing to alter or drop the inquiry.

* * *

Case title: Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc. et al

Status: Partially settled, MLS Property Information Network (also known as MLS PIN) agreed to pay $3 million and change practices; final approval of settlement pending a DOJ intervention.

Jurisdiction and judge: Massachusetts District Court; Judge Patti Saris

Defendants: MLS PIN, Anywhere, RE/MAX, HomeServices of America, Keller Williams

Plaintiffs: Recent homesellers who utilized MLS PIN

Complaint: That big brokerages, NAR and MLS PIN conspired to inflate commissions paid by sellers, mostly through the “participation rule,” requiring mandatory offers of compensation to buyer agents.

The big picture: Notable as the first commission-focused case to settle, that agreement is now in doubt after the DOJ specifically asked the judge to wait on approving the settlement. The DOJ rejected proposed amendments to the original settlement agreement, saying they would file a formal “statement of interest” in April 2024—the Council of Multiple Listing Services (CMLS) and Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) responded with amicus briefs on behalf of the defendants.

The Nosalek case was stayed from February to April while a judicial panel on multi-district litigation reviewed a consolidation request of commission-focused lawsuits. After that panel denied the request in April 2024, the HomeServices defendants filed a motion to reopen the case—which was granted later that month.

In June, Judge Sarris opted to await final ruling on the NAR settlement before proceeding with the case.   

* * *

Case title: Phillips et al v. The National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Ongoing, certain defendants dismissed from case

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Georgia; Mark H. Cohen

Defendants: NAR, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX, Keller Williams, Sotheby’s International Real Estate and five local affiliate or independent real estate companies

Plaintiffs: Recent homesellers who used NAR-affiliated MLSs in Georgia from approximately 2019 to 2023

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering. 

The big picture: Filed in the weeks after the Burnett verdict, this case is similar but not identical to Burnett and Moehrl. Plaintiffs are broadly following the same strategy and lines of argument as those cases, limiting the class to the state of Georgia (as Burnett limited their case to Missouri) and focusing on NAR and big brokerages as guilty of an antitrust conspiracy in the state. Notably, Phillips is seemingly the first major suit to name smaller affiliate companies as defendants, including affiliates of companies that settled Moehrl and Burnett, as well as independents.

On November 21, 2024, defendants Christie’s International Real Estate, Engel & Vӧlkers, Redfin, HomeSmart, Solid Source Realty, Palmerhouse Properties and Ansley Atlanta Real Estate were dismissed from the case—with plaintiffs’ consent—as the complaint against them was covered under the Gibson case settlement.

The complaint against the remaining defendants remains ongoing.

* * *

Case title: Spring Way Center, LLC et al v. West Penn Multi-List, Inc, et al

Status: Dismissed with prejudice, currently appealed to Third Circuit

Jurisdiction and judge: Western District of Pennsylvania; Judge William Stickman, referred from Judge Christy Wiegand

Defendants: West Penn MLS and eight local brokerages

Plaintiffs: Recent Pennsylvania homesellers 

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering. 

The big picture: Largely a copycat of the Burnett case, this lawsuit is notable for naming the MLS as a defendant, unlike Burnett. It is also notable for directly citing the Burnett verdict, which other lawsuits have shied away from doing. The class is limited to those sellers who used West Penn MLS in the last four years, so its scope would be roughly the same size as Burnett. Also notable, plaintiffs in this case have voiced objections to consolidating this case with the many other commission-focused class-action lawsuits filed in the wake of the Burnett verdict.

On October 7, 2024, Judge Stickman granted a motion filed by the defendants in June to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed in November, taking the case to Third Circuit Appeals Court.

* * *

Case Title: Willsim Latham, LLC v. Metrolist Services, Inc. et al

Status: Paused while the approved NAR settlement hears appeals

Jurisdiction and judge: Eastern District of California; Judge Kimberly J. Mueller

Defendants: MetroList Services and nine local REALTOR® associations involved in the organization, RE/MAX, Anywhere, Keller Williams, eXp and six other regional brokerages

Plaintiffs: Willsim Latham, LLC, and “all others similarly situated”

Complaint: The defendants adopted and enforced rules from MetroList, which have homesellers pay buyer brokers instead of buyers, and have inflated commissions for the buyer brokers.

The big picture: This is a suit from the seller’s side, similar to Burnett and its copycat suits. However, this suit takes more direct aim at MetroList—which is an MLS—rather than a REALTOR® association or brokerage, using a similar approach to cases like Spring Way Center vs. West Penn Multi-List. In addition, this is another suit in which NAR isn’t named as a defendant, but is referenced as a co-conspirator. As some defendants are involved in NAR’s settlement, proceedings are stayed as the settlement hears appeals from objectors.

* * *

Case title: Grace v. National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Paused for all NAR-affiliated defendants and those with settlement agreements until “resolution or exhaustion of the appeals” of those agreements.

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of California; Judge Susan van Keulen

Defendants: NAR, Anywhere, Keller Williams, RE/MAX, Compass, Windermere, eXp, one local MLS and five local REALTOR® associations

Plaintiffs: Homesellers who used BAREIS MLS in the last four years

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering. 

The big picture: Largely a copycat of the Burnett case, this lawsuit is notable in that it names an MLS that is partially broker-owned. It is also somewhat more explicit in targeting the MLS industry as a lynchpin in the alleged conspiracy to inflate commissions, and cites mainstream media coverage of real estate commissions, including the Wall Street Journal and CNN. Notably, the judge paused this case for two companies—eXp and Windermere—before either had reached settlements.

* * *

Case title: Umpa v. National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Consolidation into Gibson v. National Association of Realtors et al

Jurisdiction and judge: Western District of Missouri; U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough 

Defendants: NAR, HomeServices of America, Inc., Douglas Elliman, eXp, Redfin, Weichert, At World Properties, HomeSmart, Realty ONE 

Plaintiffs: Anyone who, from December 27, 2019 to present, used a listing broker affiliated with any of the defendants for the sale of a home listed on an MLS and who then paid an “inflated” commission rate.

Complaint: Alleges antitrust violations by NAR due to its control of MLS data and ability to “leverage” that in support of its rules, such as the buyer-broker commission rule. Large brokerages named as defendants are accused of furthering the supposed anticompetitive “conspiracy” using their franchise power and voice within NAR. Conduct by individual agents is also cited as supporting evidence, such as alleged “steering” of buyers to listings with higher commissions.  

The big picture: The case echoes many of the complaints in Burnett/Sitzer (which is classified as a related case)—it was also filed in the same district, with the same presiding judge. It was filed by the same attorneys behind Moehrl. However, unlike that case (which was limited to Missouri), this case’s complaint includes transactions throughout the United States (for instance, class representative Daniel Umpa is from Maryland, and the transaction where he paid the “inflated” commission unfolded in that state). The initial complaint notes the defendants have maintained business within the Missouri district’s confines, hence the court having jurisdiction. The Umpa case pinpoints the MLS industry as the lynchpin of the alleged conspiracy. Umpa is also the case that some plaintiffs used as a springboard to petition for broad consolidation of these commission lawsuits. Umpa has now been consolidated into the Gibson case, and will continue as one set of proceedings under the Gibson banner.

* * *

Case title: QJ Team, LLC, et al., v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.

Status: Paused for NAR-affiliated defendants and others who have settlement agreements in separate cases, pending final court approval of those agreements.

Jurisdiction and judge: Eastern District of Texas; Judge Sean D. Jordan

Defendants: Fathom Realty, Keller Williams, HomeServices of America, Texas Association of REALTORS®, four other local REALTOR® associations, 23 local brokerages

Plaintiffs: Homesellers who used any Texas MLS over the last four years

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering. 

The big picture: Largely a copycat of the Burnett case, this lawsuit is more explicit in pinning the blame for the alleged conspiracy on NAR—even though NAR is not a named defendant—calling the national association the “core” of a “concealed conspiracy.” It also names Anywhere and RE/MAX as “co-conspirators,” rather than defendants in the suit.

* * *

Case title: Martin, et al., v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.

Status: Consolidated into QJ Team, LLC, et al., v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.; Pursuant to QJ Team’s proceedings

Jurisdiction and judge: Eastern District of Texas; Judge Sean D. Jordan

Defendants: A total of 47 brokerages, REALTOR® associations and franchisors that operate in Texas

Plaintiffs: Homesellers who used any Texas MLS over the last four years

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering. 

The big picture: A carbon copy of the QJ Team lawsuit—and therefore, largely following the Burnett playbook—this suit was filed by the same lawyers as the QJ Team suit, with different plaintiffs and a huge number of new defendants. NAR and some other big brokerages offered this district as a venue for consolidating all the commission-focused lawsuits together. This case has now been consolidated with the QJ Team case, and any proceedings are now pursuant to proceedings in QJ Team.

* * *

Case title: Parker Holding Group Inc. v. Florida Association of REALTORS et al.

Status: Paused pending approval of the NAR settlement

Jurisdiction and judge: Florida Circuit Court for the Eleventh District (State court); Judge Lisa Walsh 

Defendants: Florida Association of REALTORS®, 15 local brokerages

Plaintiffs: Homesellers who paid buyer commission on MLSs in Florida over the past four years

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering

The big picture: As this suit was filed in state court, it will be state antitrust and consumer protection laws applied to what are essentially the same claims as most of the other suits filed by sellers. This case also directly cites the Burnett verdict, unlike the vast majority of suits filed in its aftermath. 

* * *

Case title: Burton v. National Association of REALTORs et al

Status: Paused while the approved NAR settlement hears appeals

Jurisdiction and judge: South Carolina District Court; Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin

Defendants: NAR and Keller Williams

Plaintiffs: Homesellers who used Keller Williams agents and South Carolina-based MLSs in the last four years

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically the “participation rule,” which mandates offers of compensation to buyer agents. Plaintiffs also alleged broad anti-competitive practices, including price-fixing and steering.

The big picture: Largely a copycat of the Burnett case, this suit only focuses on Keller Williams agents. Otherwise, the lawsuit mirrors the allegations and strategy of Burnett. Both NAR and Keller Williams have settled their homeseller commission lawsuits—which may or may not grant them immunity in this case—and both settlements have received final approval. The case remains stayed as the approved NAR settlement is appealed by objectors.

* * *

Case title: March v. Real Estate Board of New York et al

Status: Paused for some defendants, others requesting pause pending appeal of NAR settlement by plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction and judge: Southern District of New York; Judge Jessical G.L. Clarke and Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehburger

Defendants: Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), Brown Harris Stevens, Christie’s, Compass, Douglas Elliman, Engel & Vӧlkers, Keller Williams, Homesnap, The Corcoran Group, The Agency, Sotheby’s, RE/MAX and 15 other local brokerages

Plaintiffs: Recent homesellers who used the REBNY listing services (known as the RLS) during the last four years and paid a buyer agent commission

Complaint: That defendants conspired to create rules that inflated commissions paid by sellers, specifically rules which mandate offers of compensation to buyer agents.

The big picture: While broadly mirroring the Burnett case, this lawsuit is fundamentally different in important ways. REBNY is not associated with NAR, meaning plaintiffs are seeking to prove that an entirely separate organization implemented a similar illegal scheme using similar mechanisms. This suit extensively cites the Burnett, MLS PIN and Moehrl cases, and also notes that REBNY changed its buyer compensation rules right before the Burnett trial. Notably, this suit covers a very small, urban geographic region (Manhattan), as opposed to nearly all the other commission suits, which sprawl across rural, urban and suburban landscapes. Plaintiffs in the case have appealed the NAR settlement approval ruling to the Eight Circuit, arguing their lawsuit should be allowed to go forward based on the unique and separate nature of the New York City real estate landscape.

* * *

Case title: Friedman v. Real Estate Board of New York et al

Status: Paused for some defendants, others requesting pause pending appeal of NAR settlement by plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction and judge: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Senior Judge Frederic Block

Defendants: The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), Douglas Elliman, Christie’s, Corcoran, Sotheby’s, Brown Harris Stevens, Serhant Company, Anywhere Real Estate, Engel & Völkers New York Real Estate

Plaintiffs: Anyone who sold residential real estate in Brooklyn neighborhoods covered by REBNY from December 29, 2019, to the present.

Complaint: The Real Estate Board of New York’s buyer-broker commission rule constitutes an anticompetitive conspiracy to inflate commissions—REBNY controls access to listings via its RLS and defendants brokerages, who sell in Brooklyn neighborhoods overseen by the RLS, must abide by REBNY rules. 

The big picture: While broadly mirroring the Burnett case, this lawsuit is fundamentally different in important ways. REBNY is not associated with NAR, meaning plaintiffs are seeking to prove that an entirely separate organization implemented a similar illegal scheme using similar mechanisms. This suit extensively cites the Burnett, MLS PIN and Moehrl cases, and also notes that REBNY changed its buyer compensation rules right before the Burnett trial. Notably, this suit covers a very small, urban geographic region (Brooklyn), as opposed to nearly all the other commission suits, which sprawl across rural, urban and suburban landscapes. Plaintiffs in the case have appealed the NAR settlement approval ruling to the Eight Circuit, arguing their lawsuit should be allowed to go forward based on the unique and separate nature of the New York City real estate landscape.

* * *

Case Title: Whaley v. National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Paused pending final approval of the NAR settlement and separate settlements struck by defendants in other cases.

Jurisdiction and judge: Nevada District Court; Judge Anne R. Traum

Defendants: NAR, Opendoor, eXp, Redfin, 12 local/regional brokerages, two regional MLSs and six regional/local REALTOR® associations

Plaintiffs: Anyone who listed properties on one of the MLSs listed and paid a buyer broker commission from January 15, 2020 to the present

Complaint: The defendants have conspired together to keep commissions artificially inflated at 4.5% to 6% and have sellers pay costs that would typically fall on a buyer, based on rules specifically put in place by NAR.

The big picture: This is another case on the list of seller filings amongst this list, essentially a copycat of Burnett but for the Nevada region. Similar to QJ Team, LLC vs. Texas Association of Realtors, the complaint specifically names the anti-competitive rules that NAR is under fire for in several other suits, which were also a main point in Burnett. Paused in July based on settlements in other cases, with a status report due after the appeal period expires for the NAR settlement.

* * *

Case title: Masiello v. Arizona Association of Realtors et al

Status: Paused pending settlement negotiations and the opt-in of some defendants to NAR’s settlement

Jurisdiction and judge: United States District Court District of Arizona; Judge Douglas L. Rayes

Defendants: The Arizona Association of REALTORS®, the Phoenix Association of REALTORS®, the Scottsdale Area Association of REALTORS®, West and Southeast REALTORS® of the Valley Inc., Tucson Association of REALTORS®, My Home Group Real Estate, LLC, Realty Executives LLC, Corduroy IP LLC, Silverleaf Realty LLC, West USA Realty, Inc., Walty Danley Local Luxury Christie’s International Real Estate, Roy H. Long Realty Company, Tierra Antigua Realty LLC

Plaintiffs: Anyone who sold real estate via an Arizona MLS and paid a buyer-broker commission from January 5, 2020 to present. 

Complaint: The buyer-broker commission rule, enforced nationally by “co-conspirator” NAR, is an anticompetitive practice, and major associations within Arizona have furthered the “damage” to consumers by mandating members be part of NAR/follow their bylaws. Arizona homesellers are seeking restitution for this alleged conspiracy. 

The big picture: Similar to Friedman v. REBNY, the case makes the same allegations of anti-competitiveness against the buyer-broker rule and against statewide associations. Unlike that case, the Masiello complaint document mentions the Burnett case as supporting evidence of the complaint and also names NAR as a co-conspirator (though not a defendant). The case was stayed so that defendants My Home Group LLC, West USA Realty Inc., Tierra Antigua Realty LLC and Realty Executives LLC may negotiate settlements and/or opt-in to NAR’s approved settlement.

* * *

Case title: Gael Fierro et al v. National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Stayed for all defendants covered by the NAR settlement pending approval of that agreement; stayed for eXp pending separate approval of its settlement.

Jurisdiction and judge: California Central District Court; Mark C. Scarsi (presiding judge) and Brianna Fuller Mircheff (referral judge) 

Defendants: NAR, Compass, eXp, Berkshire Hathaway, California Regional MLS, California Association of REALTORS® 

Plaintiffs: Everyone who sold real estate via an MLS and paid a commission in Los Angeles, Madera and/or Fresno counties from January 17, 2020, to the present.

Complaint: Alleging anticompetitive practices that harm consumers by NAR through the buyer-broker commission rule. Similar to Masiello, the case names local real estate associations as defendants, and like Grace and Umpa, pinpoints the MLS industry (and NAR’s control of MLS data) as the deciding factor by which the “conspiracy” has been carried out.

The big picture: The scope of the case is limited to central California and the three counties named in the complaint. Notably, local MLSs are also named as defendants. Paused like many other copycats pending resolution of the NAR settlement, though parties disputed whether companies who did not opt in to the NAR deal should also have deadlines paused.

***

Case title: Hardy et al v. National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Initial complaint filed.

Jurisdiction and judge: Michigan Eastern District; Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey

Defendants: NAR, the Michigan Association of REALTORS®, three local REALTOR® associations and one MLS

Plaintiffs: Two brokers and one agent in Michigan.

Complaint: That requiring membership in multiple REALTOR® associations to access the MLS violates antitrust laws and constitutes an unfair restraint on trade. Plaintiffs specifically claimed that the NAR settlement made REALTOR® membership less valuable due to no longer having a “guarantee of commission” on the MLS.

The big picture: The lawsuit is seeking class-action status but is also not a novel legal theory, like the original commission lawsuits (Burnett and Moehrl). Courts have issued split rulings on whether REALTOR® associations can restrict MLS access to members. This lawsuit is seeking to end that practice, citing the “overwhelming economic power and market dominance” of the defendants in the listing service space.

***

Case title: Muhammad v. National Association of REALTORS et al

Status: Initial complaint filed

Jurisdiction and judge: Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Judge Joseph Leeson

Defendants: NAR, Pennsylvania Association of REALTORS®, one local MLS and 10 local brokers individually

Plaintiffs: Pennsylvania-based broker Maurice Muhammad

Complaint: That NAR and local associations are violating antitrust laws and engaging in “monopolistic practices” by requiring membership to access MLS, and that these organizations have engaged in a “pattern of discriminatory practices against minority real estate professionals” through “selective enforcement” of rules, along with other civil rights violations.

The big picture: Representing himself, Muhammad has provided minimal details to back up his accusations so far, but like the Hardy case, is seeking to eliminate mandatory REALTOR® membership for MLS access. Specifically, he asked the court to order NAR to establish alternative MLS systems for non-members, as well as reforming how disputes and bias complaints are handled. Muhammad claimed that his MLS access was revoked after he filed the lawsuit, damaging his business.

***

Case title: Wang v. National Association of REALTORS et al

Status: Paused pending NAR appeal

Jurisdiction and judge: Southern District of New York; Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke

Defendants: NAR, REBNY and seven companies operating in the New York City region 

Plaintiffs: Haozhe Wang

Complaint: That defendants together conspired to inflate commissions paid by Wang during several real estate transactions, preventing commission negotiations and enforcing rules that violated state and federal antitrust laws.

The big picture: Representing himself, Wang is not seeking class-action status, but is essentially making the same claims as the class-action plaintiffs based on his individual experiences buying and selling homes, during which he claims he was coerced into paying inflated commissions. Notably, Wang objected to the NAR settlement, and unlike most objectors, attended the hearing in-person, where he characterized the new policies as discriminatory and anti-consumer.

***

Case title: Homie Technology, Inc. v. National Association of Realtors et al

Status: Multiple pending motions to dismiss

Jurisdiction and judge: Utah District Court; Judge Dale Kimball

Defendants: NAR, Anywhere, HomeServices, Keller Williams and RE/MAX

Plaintiffs: Discount brokerage Homie Technology

Complaint: That defendants together conspired to suppress competition through keeping commissions stable and illegally monopolizing the listing service market.

The big picture: Homie, a discount brokerage based in Utah, makes many of the same claims as the class-action plaintiffs regarding mandatory offers of compensation and control of the MLS, but as a competing business rather than a consumer. Homie claims these practices prevented it from making inroads in the real estate market, citing multiple clients who reported REALTORS® were blacklisting Homie listings.

***

Case title: Maslanka et al v. Baird & Warner, Inc

Status: Pending settlement which would resolve the case if approved.

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Illinois; Judge Lindsay Jenkins.

Defendants: Baird & Warner

Plaintiffs: Homebuyers and homesellers who transacted in Illinois with a Baird & Warner agent over the last 19 years.

Complaint: That Baird & Warner conspired with NAR and others to inflate commissions in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.

The big picture: Notable due to seeking to certify a class of both buyers and sellers, as well as only naming one company, this lawsuit was originally filed in state court but was moved to the federal level before any major litigation occurred. Also uncertain is how this case might eventually resolve, as settlement agreements struck so far have all been negotiated with seller plaintiffs. Baird & Warner agreed to settle in the Gibson case, and it is not clear how that will affect the buyer claims (or a separately negotiated settlement) in this case.