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 to reflect extensive new developments in existing litigation and to add seven newly filed lawsuits.

It might feel impossible to keep track of them all. With what seems like a new large-scale, high-stakes lawsuit popping up every few weeks, the big picture of legal challenges to the industry continues to grow more complex and convoluted. While it isn’t necessary, feasible or even advantageous for the average real estate practitioner to follow every development in every case, having no idea what’s happening will leave you unprepared for long-term changes, or even for near-term conversations with clients, who are now bombarded with headlines talking about real estate conspiracies and agent price-fixing.

The lawsuits below are the kind which target practices or policies endemic to real estate—not just a single company or entity—and have the potential to affect most or all real estate businesses. While some will take years to play out, and others will fizzle or settle, all these suits could have a direct impact on you and the way you run your business. Having a basic understanding of the cases—the issues, geographies and the context—is vitally important for anyone trying to make it long term in the industry.

Editor’s note: 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). Defendants have publicly stated that they plan to appeal. Two defendants settled and agreed to change practices.

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

Defendants: NAR, Keller Williams, HomeServices of America (RE/MAX and Anywhere settled case before trial)

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. Defendants have said they have strong grounds for appeal, arguing that the jury was not allowed to consider key evidence, including state statutes. 

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing by plaintiffs; no class certified.

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. Potential damages could reach hundreds of billions of dollars, assuming another verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and using the same calculation used by the jury in Burnett.

* * *

Case title: Moehrl v. National Association of Realtors

Status: Class certified, jury trial scheduled tentatively for Q4 2024

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Illinois; Judge Andrea R. Wood

Defendants: NAR, Keller Williams, HomeServices of America (RE/MAX and Anywhere settled case September 2023)  

Plaintiffs: Homesellers who used 20 NAR-affiliated MLSs during a four-year period leading up to the filing of the lawsuit (2015 – 2019)

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 and Gibson, the Moehrl case is notable due to its scope and the fact that it has advanced closer to trial, compared to other lawsuits. Originally filed into 2019, plaintiffs estimated potential damages around $13 billion compared to the $1.8 billion judgment in Burnett. NAR has asked to consolidate many or most of the ongoing commission-focused lawsuits in this district, with Judge Wood presiding over pre-trial proceedings in all the cases.

* * *

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: Pre-trial proceedings, class not yet certified

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Illinois; Judge Andrea R. Wood

Defendants: NAR, Keller Williams, HomeServices of America, 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 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: 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. 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 33 states where damages are sought are those which allow “indirect purchasers” like homebuyers to seek damages from antitrust violations committed by entities they did not directly engage with. In January of 2024, this case was merged with Batton et al v. Compass, Inc. et al. NAR has asked to consolidate many or most of the ongoing commission-focused lawsuits in this district, with Judge Wood presiding over pre-trial proceedings in all the cases.

* * *

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

Status: Merged with Batton v. The National Association of Realtors et al

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Illinois; Judge Andrea R. Wood

Defendants: Compass, eXp, Redfin, Weichert, United Real Estate, Howard Hanna, 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 33 states where damages are sought are those which allow “indirect purchasers” like homebuyers to seek damages from antitrust violations committed by entities they did not directly engage with. In January of 2024, this case was merged with Batton v. The National Association of Realtors et al. NAR has asked to consolidate many or most of the ongoing commission-focused lawsuits in this district, with Judge Wood presiding over pre-trial proceedings in all the cases.

* * *

Case Title: Tuccori v. At World Properties, LLC 

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

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 a 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.

* * *

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

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 of 2024, the MLS defendants came to a preliminary settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, seemingly ending the lawsuit.

* * *

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

Status: Pre-trial proceedings, plaintiffs and defendants discussing a “resolution”

Jurisdiction and judge: California Northern District; Judge Vince Chhabria

Defendants: NAR, San Francisco Association of REALTORS® (SFAR)

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

Complaint: That NAR and SFAR 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.

* * *

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

Status: Dismissed, pending appeal to D.C. Circuit

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

Defendants: NAR

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

Complaint: That the DOJ should 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 has been seeking to restart their investigation into NAR since early 2021, but have so far been disallowed by the courts. A reversal of Judge Kelly’s decision to prevent the DOJ from reopening the investigation—which originally focused on many of the same rules and practices at issue in the privately filed lawsuits—could create an immediate and significant pressure on NAR. Judges in this case are not, however, deciding on the merits of the investigation, but only on whether the DOJ is allowed to continue with it.

* * *

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. Most recently, the DOJ rejected proposed amendments to the original settlement agreement, saying they would file a formal “statement of interest” in April of 2024.

* * *

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

Status: Initial complaint filed, class not certified

Jurisdiction and judge: Northern District of Georgia; Sarah E. Geraghty

Defendants: NAR, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX, Keller Williams, Christie’s International Real Estate, Sotheby’s International Real Estate, Engel & Vӧlkers, HomeSmart and eight 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.

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

Jurisdiction and judge: Western District of Pennsylvania; 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.

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

Jurisdiction and judge: Eastern District of California; Judge Deborah L. Barnes

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 home sellers 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.

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

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

Defendants: NAR, Anywhere, Keller Williams, RE/MAX, Compass, 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 commission, including the Wall Street Journal and CNN.

* * *

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

Status: Class not certified

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. 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. 

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

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. NAR and some other big brokerages have offered this district as a venue for consolidating all the commission-focused lawsuits together.

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

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 have offered this district as a venue for consolidating all the commission-focused lawsuits together.

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

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: Initial filing, class not certified

Jurisdiction and judge: South Carolina District Court; Judge Joseph Dawson III

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 for reasons that are still not clear. Otherwise, the lawsuit mirrors the allegations and strategy of Burnett. 

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

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

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, Soetheby’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. If successful, this might actually undermine plaintiffs in other cases, who claim that absent NAR’s influence, “cooperative compensation” would not exist. 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.

* * *

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

Status: Dismissed on January 18 as lead plaintiff, Robert Friedman, has withdrawn.

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: Essentially a micro-version of the Burnett case, describing a similar “horizontal conspiracy” to inflate commissions and challenging it on antitrust grounds. However, the complaint targets only players/institutions in the New York real estate market, not NAR. The case is currently dismissed, and attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment.

* * *

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

Status: Initial filing, class not certified

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 MLSes listed and paid a buyer broker commission from Jan. 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.

* * *

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

Status: Summons issued to defendants, class not certified 

Jurisdiction and judge: United States District Court District of Arizona; Judge Michael T. Liburdi

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 One Group Arizona, Inc., Realty Executives, 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).

* * *

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

Status: Recently filed, class not certified 

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: Another Burnett/Sitzer copy-cat case, alleging anticompetitive practices to the harm of consumers by NAR and 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.