Real estate antitrust and commission lawsuits, week in court update

It has been a busy week in the courts and HousingWire is here to update you on all of the real estate lawsuit developments. 

The Compass v. NWMLS battle continues

Compass is seeking to dismiss the counterclaims asserted against it by Northwest MLS (NWMLS), according to a motion filed last Thursday. 

In the filing Compass claims that “only a monopolist like NWMLS would sue its own customer (Compass) for daring to stand up for competition and homeowner choice.”

“With its counterclaims, NWMLS tries to manufacture tort liability from Compass’s efforts to help its brokers comply with their fiduciary duties and offer homeowners different options to market their homes,” the filing states.

The motion continues on to claim that the counterclaims “an unveiled threat to Compass and any other Seattle area brokers who might consider opposing NWMLS’s mandates or breaking from the conspiracy of brokers it has organized.”

This comes after NWMLS filed counterclaims against Compass in early April alleging that the firm’s “three-phase marketing program” is a deceptive pocket listing scheme that violates Washington’s Consumer Protection Act by hiding inventory and manipulating days-on-market data. 

The counterclaims are part of a lawsuit filed by Compass against NWMLS in April of last year, in which Compass claimed that NWMLS is a  “monopolist” and that its listing policy, which does not allow for office exclusive listings, is anticompetitive. 

In an emailed statement NWMLS CEO Justin Haag claimed that “Compass’s recent attempt to frame market transparency as a ‘monopoly’ is a distraction from the real issue: the creation of shadow inventory that benefits a single brokerage at the expense of the general public.”

“While Compass labels its “three-phased marketing” ploy as innovative, it is in fact nothing more than an exclusionary practice that hides material information and listings from the buyers who need them most. Northwest MLS is built on the belief that every broker and every homebuyer deserves equal access to every listing and all the information about each listing,” Haag added.

“By withholding listings and key information from other brokers and the public, Compass is manipulating critical market data, including days on market and price change history, which degrades the accuracy and reliability of the data Northwest MLS compiles and that all brokers, appraisers, and consumers rely upon.

Northwest MLS is not “blocking” self-proclaimed “innovation” – we are blocking exclusionary practices and deception. We believe a fair market is an open market. We will continue to defend the pro-competitive rules that benefit all brokers and consumers and protect the public’s right to a transparent, competitive, and honest real estate market.”

Compass did not wish to comment on its filing. 

Three-way membership agreement lawsuits look to rise from the ashes

Despite federal courts in Louisiana and Michigan dismissing the DeYoung and Hardy suits, the plaintiffs in both antitrust suits are seeking to bring their legal claims back.

Earlier this week, a federal court in Louisiana granted the DeYoung plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint. This came after the court dismissed federal antitrust and Fair Housing Act claims filed in early January 2025 by brokers Carla DeYoung and Carlos Alvarez, along with agents Tammy Jo Williams and Darlene Currie against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the Greater Baton Rouge Association of Realtors (GBRAR), the New Orleans Metropolitan Association of Realtors (NOMAR), ROAM MLS and several other Louisiana based defendants at the end of March. However, these claims were dismissed without prejudice providing the plaintiffs with the opportunity to file an amended complaint.

In the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs repled the federal claims the court had previously dismissed. Again, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have “engaged in anticompetitive and exclusionary practices, including conditioning access to MLS data and MLS-related platforms […] on compulsory membership in local, state and national Realtor associations.” 

As for the Hardy suit, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday regarding the final judgement issued in the lawsuit in late March.

Filed in August 2024, the Hardy suit claims that the requirement that all agents and brokers in Michigan be members of NAR, their state Realtor association and a local board of Realtors in order to list a property on Realcomp (the local MLS) represents an antitrust violation. 

In the final judgement ruling, the court found the plaintiffs’ claims that they could not access information in the MLS anywhere else to be “misleading and contradicted by reality,” resulting in the dismissal of the lawsuit.

NAR did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment on either of these lawsuits.

Another antitrust suit seeks to channel its inner phoenix 

Jorge Zea, the plaintiff in the aptly named Zea antitrust lawsuit filed an amended complaint on Monday after his lawsuit was fully dismissed in mid-April. The ultimate dismissals of NAR, as well as the Connecticut Association of Realtors (CT Realtors), Connecticut-based Smart MLS, Arizona-based West and Southeast Realtors of the Valley (WeSERV) and 11 Florida-based associations and MLS came as a result of the  report and recommendations of Magistrate Judge William Matthewman, who called Zea’s complaint “deficiently pled.”

Originally filed in August, the lawsuit claims that the defendants engaged in a “coordinated scheme” to restrict consumer choice and maintain elevated prices, harming his brokerage model.

Zea runs www.snapflatfee.com, a brokerage that charges sellers a listing fee in exchange for limited services. Zea’s firm syndicates listings data to the MLS data feeds and forwards all buyer leads “regardless of their origin” directly to the seller.

In the amended complaint, Zea reiterates his claims that the defendants “collectively” decline to “implement or enforce” the “mandatory” rules that NAR has put in place  to “mitigate anticompetitive practices, including commission-based steering, suppression of listing agent contact, and unfair barriers to alternative service models.”

NAR did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment.

It is 2026 and we’re still talking about commission lawsuits

Earlier this week, both Compass and United Real Estate notified the Batton homebuyer commission lawsuit court that they had both decided to opt-into the Tuccori homebuyer commission lawsuit settlement agreement in motions to stay the Batton proceedings, pending the approval of their settlements. These motions were denied on Thursday, keeping in line with earlier decisions to not stay the proceedings pending the approval of other Tuccori opt-in settlements. 

Compass did not wish to comment on the settlement and United Real Estate did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment. 

These settlements come as other Tuccori opt-in settlements come under fire from the Batton and Lutz plaintiffs. 

On Tuesday, the Batton plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to prevent NAR from proceeding with its settlement due to two appeals the plaintiffs currently have pending with the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals, claiming that the settlement was the result of a “reverse auction.” On Wednesday, Judge LaShonda Hunt denied this motion, reaffirming the same ruling she made regarding the Batton plaintiffs’ quest to stop Anywhere Real Estate’s settlement with the Tuccori plaintiffs from proceeding. 

NAR did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment on the Batton’s plaintiffs’ motion or the judge’s ultimate ruling.

Similarly, the Lutz homebuyer commission lawsuit plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to prevent HomeServices of America and Douglas Elliman from proceeding with their Tuccori opt-in settlements. 

“These plaintiffs never sued the Defendants, but are now selling Defendants a release of Plaintiffs’ claims here in exchange for fees. Defendants bought this release from plaintiffs who not only did not sue them, but could not without their consent, given Defendants’ professed lack of personal jurisdiction over them in Illinois,” the filing states.

The Lutz plaintiffs continue on to call the settlements a “reverse auction,” claiming that the defendants “picked a plaintiff with weaker claims and weaker counsel in an effort to negotiate a more favorable settlement,” and noting that the opt-in settlements came after the court overseeing the Lutz lawsuit denied most of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Lutz lawsuit.

The firms announced their decisions to opt-in to the Tuccori settlement in mid-April. Neither defendant immediately returned HousingWire’s request for comment.

While not a homebuyer commission lawsuit, the legal battle in the Hooper home seller commission lawsuit continued this week with James Mullis and the Gibson lawsuit plaintiffs appealing the court’s awarding of attorneys fees in the Hooper suit related to home seller commission lawsuit settlements reached with eXp World Holdings and Weichert Realtors.The Gibson plaintiffs had previously objected to these settlements calling them “sweetheart deals” and “reverse auctions” as the Batton plaintiffs have done with the Tuccori settlements. These attempts to intervene in the Hooper suit were unsuccessful, as the Batton plaintiffs’ have thus far been in the Tuccori suit.

eXp did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment and HomeServices declines to comment.