On March 29, 2023, the Honorable Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District granted class certification to two classes, specifically the damages and injunctive relief classes, in this antitrust class action against the National Association of Realtors and the four largest national real estate broker franchisors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., for allegedly conspiring to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay at an inflated amount, in violation of federal antitrust law.
On May 30, 2020, the court appointed Cohen Milstein Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel to represent home sellers in this litigation.
On October 10, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in this lawsuit.
On March 6, 2019, Cohen Milstein and co-counsel filed a putative antitrust class action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois on behalf of home sellers who paid a broker commission in the last four years in connection with the sale of residential real estate listed on one of twenty Multiple Listing Services (“MLSs”), covering several major metropolitan areas in the Mid-Atlantic, Mid-West, South-West, Mountain-West, and Southeast regions.
Plaintiffs, home sellers who listed their homes on one of twenty MLSs bring this action against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the four largest national real estate broker franchisors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., for conspiring to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay at an inflated amount, in violation of federal antitrust law.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ conspiracy has centered around NAR’s adoption and implementation of a mandatory rule that requires all brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation (the “Buyer Broker Commission Rule”) when listing a property on a MLS.
Most MLSs (including all MLSs at issue in this case) are controlled by local NAR associations, and access to such MLSs is conditioned on brokers following all mandatory rules set forth in NAR’s Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy, including the Buyer Broker Commission Rule.
The conspiracy, plaintiffs allege, has saddled home sellers with a cost that would be borne by the buyer in a competitive market. Moreover, because most buyer brokers will not show homes to their clients where the seller is offering a lower buyer broker commission, or will show homes with higher commission offers first, sellers are incentivized when making the required blanket, non-negotiable offer to procure the buyer brokers’ cooperation by offering a high commission.
The mandatory Buyer Broker Commission Rule ensures that price competition among buyer brokers is restrained because the person retaining the buyer broker, the buyer, does not negotiate or pay his or her broker’s commission. In addition, the seller’s inflated commission offer cannot be reduced by buyers or their brokers, as Defendants also prohibit buyer brokers from making home purchase offers contingent on the reduction of the buyer broker commission. Absent this rule, buyer brokers would be paid by their clients and would compete to be retained by offering a lower commission.
Currently, total broker compensation in the United States is typically five to six percent of the home sales price, with approximately half of that amount—and increasingly more than half—paid to the buyer broker. Defendants’ conspiracy has kept buyer broker commissions in the 2.5 to 3.0 percent range for many years despite the diminishing role of buyer brokers due to buyers independently identifying homes through online services and retaining buyer brokers only after they have found the home they wish to buy.
The conspiracy has inflated buyer broker commissions, which, in turn, have inflated the total commissions paid by home sellers, who have incurred, on average, thousands of dollars in damages as a result of Defendants’ conspiracy.
MLSs covered in this action:
- The Bright MLS (including the metropolitan areas of Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Richmond, Virginia; Washington, D.C.);
- My Florida Regional MLS (including the metropolitan areas of Tampa, Orlando, and Sarasota);
- The five MLSs in the Mid-West that cover the following metropolitan areas: Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Minneapolis, Minnesota;
- The six MLSs in the Southwest that cover the following metropolitan areas: Austin, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Houston, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona; San Antonio Texas;
- The three MLSs in the Mountain West that cover the following metropolitan areas: Colorado Springs, Colorado; Denver, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah;
- The four MLSs in the Southeast that cover the following metropolitan areas: Fort Myers, Florida; Miami, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Raleigh, North Carolina.