The landmark settlement in the Burnett (Sitzer) v. National Association of Realtors (NAR) class action lawsuit has officially received final approval from U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough on November 27, 2024. This settlement is set to impact millions of homeowners across the U.S., offering substantial financial restitution and mandating significant changes in real estate practices. The full details of the court’s order and settlement terms are provided in the document below.
Judge Bough emphasized the fairness of the settlement, noting that it provides “substantial benefits to the class” while ensuring equitable treatment of all members. Over 491,000 claims have been filed as of November 14, 2024, with claims open until May 2025. Below are the key highlights:
Financial Compensation: Settlement class members who paid real estate commissions through any MLS-affiliated transaction are eligible for compensation.
Industry Practice Reforms: Changes include greater transparency in commission structures and improved practices across participating brokerages.
Comprehensive Notice Program: Nearly 40 million notices were sent, ensuring a broad reach, with over 300 million digital impressions.
Minimal Objections: Despite the large class size, only 39 members opted out, and objections were minimal.
Judge Bough described the settlement as “a significant and swift recovery for the Class,” underscoring its importance in resolving complex antitrust claims while avoiding protracted litigation.
For those in St. Louis, this settlement underscores the value of informed real estate practices. At MORE, REALTORS®, we are committed to transparency and exceptional service, ensuring buyers and sellers have the support they need in an ever-evolving market.
Learn more about the settlement and its implications by reviewing the full order below.
Burnett vs The National Association of REALTORS Settlement Order
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is turning up the heat on the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the real estate industry at large. In a Statement of Interest filed in the class-action lawsuit Burnett v. NAR, the DOJ highlighted ongoing concerns about antitrust practices that could harm buyers, sellers, and competition within the real estate market.
The DOJ took particular aim at the current practice of unilateral offers of compensation to buyer brokers. These practices, the filing explains, pressure sellers to offer high commissions—often 2.5-3%—to buyer brokers to avoid “steering,” ultimately driving up home prices. This arrangement benefits neither buyers nor sellers, as it limits competition among brokers and prevents meaningful negotiations on fees.
Another area of concern is a proposed settlement provision requiring buyers and brokers to sign written agreements before any home tours. While intended to add transparency, the DOJ warns it could hinder competition among buyer brokers, making it harder for buyers to explore their options freely.
Importantly, the DOJ has not endorsed the proposed settlement in this case. Instead, it reserves the right to continue investigating and enforcing antitrust laws. Compliance with the settlement will not shield NAR or other entities from future legal scrutiny.
The DOJ’s filing serves as a reminder that transparency, competition, and fair practices are essential to keeping the real estate market accessible and equitable for everyone. For buyers, sellers, and agents alike, this case underscores the importance of choosing representation that prioritizes their interests over outdated or self-serving industry norms.
Department of Justice – Statement of Interest – NAR Settlement
A federal court recently denied a request from eXp Realty to pause ongoing litigation while a settlement in a related case was being finalized. This ruling highlights growing concerns over settlement practices in the real estate industry, particularly in cases involving alleged anti-competitive behaviors. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the proposed settlement in the related Hooper lawsuit failed to adequately address claims or consider eXp’s financial resources, potentially leaving affected homebuyers and sellers shortchanged.
For consumers, this decision underscores the importance of accountability and fairness in real estate dealings. As cases like this challenge longstanding industry norms, buyers and sellers should take the time to fully understand commission structures and ensure their agents are acting transparently. Staying informed about legal developments can help you make smarter decisions when navigating the complexities of real estate transactions.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we prioritize transparency and client-focused service, ensuring you always have the information you need to make confident real estate decisions. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you.
The full court order detailing this decision is available below for those who want to dig deeper into the specifics.
ORDER – Gibson v NAR on eXp Realty’s Motion to Stay Case
Tanya Monestier, a tenured law professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law and former professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, has stepped into the Sitzer v. NAR lawsuit with a compelling and meticulously researched objection to the proposed settlement. Monestier, whose academic work on contract law and consumer protection has been cited by courts across North America—including the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Canada—brings a formidable legal background to her critique. Her objection portrays the settlement as a superficial, paper-only solution that leaves consumers vulnerable to the same anti-competitive practices it claimed to remedy. As Monestier puts it, “The settlement makes sense—but only on paper… In the real world, the implementation of the settlement has been a disaster.”
Monestier argues that the industry’s entrenched practices remain unchallenged by the settlement. Steering persists, commissions are still locked at 5-6%, and sellers continue to shoulder both agents’ fees, contrary to the supposed reforms. She warns, “What matters is how the settlement is being implemented in real life. And it is being implemented in a way that preserves the status quo of sellers paying both brokers.” Her objection underscores the reality that, rather than empowering buyers to negotiate their agents’ compensation, the industry has doubled down on its old ways, sidestepping reform.
Another alarming aspect of Monestier’s objection is her contention that the settlement introduces confusion instead of clarity, leaving both buyers and sellers struggling to navigate a complex, quasi-regulatory landscape. “As long as this is possible, the current system of seller-financed commissions will remain intact,” she argues, stressing that this agreement risks setting the industry back by reinforcing behaviors it purported to dismantle.
Monestier’s objection is a call to action for the court to reconsider the settlement’s adequacy and fairness, cautioning against accepting it at face value. She warns, “Unless someone speaks up, this Court is likely to be convinced that this settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’ It is not. It simply reinforces the existing system of seller-paid inflated compensation while pretending to eliminate it.” For those interested in the full details of her objection, the complete document is available for review below.
See the entire objection that Tanya Monestier filed with the court HERE
There was an opinion piece published today on Inman News by Eric Bramlett that suggests that fears of a widespread shift in commission payments from sellers to buyers are overblown. Bramlett argues, “Sellers are primarily concerned with the net proceeds they’ll receive and the overall terms of the contract.” While I agree that many sellers will still “pay” the buyer’s agent commission, I don’t believe the traditional commission structure will endure. In fact, the St. Louis Association of REALTORS® is in the process of updating the forms that most of the St Louis area REALTORS®, including listing agreement. In this updated version, the seller will only be charged commission for the listing agent, with no provision for offering commission to a buyer’s agent. However, I expect that in many cases, buyers will negotiate for the seller to cover their agent’s commission as part of the overall deal—bringing more transparency to the process and putting the negotiation front and center.
As I’ve emphasized in prior articles about the NAR/Sitzer settlement, the real impact of these changes will be in how commissions are discussed and handled, not whether they are eliminated. This is a pivotal time for agents to educate their clients on the evolving commission landscape, ensuring buyers and sellers both understand who is paying for what and why. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’ve been preparing for this shift, and we’re committed to guiding our clients through these changes with clear communication and expert advice.
In a groundbreaking analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a recent report has challenged some prevailing assumptions about the impact of lowering real estate agent fees on home prices. According to the findings, a reduction in agent fees, contrary to what some might expect, could lead to higher house prices. This is because lower future transaction costs enhance the overall value of housing as a durable asset, increasing consumer welfare, primarily benefiting current homeowners over prospective buyers.
For homeowners in St. Louis, this suggests a more complex real estate landscape where the benefits of lowered agent fees might not translate directly into lower home purchasing costs. Instead, the increased house values could affect both the affordability and investment perspectives on residential properties. This nuanced understanding of market dynamics underscores the need for professional guidance in navigating the real estate market, something MORE, REALTORS® is expertly equipped to provide.
For a deeper dive into these findings and their implications on the housing market, the full report is available for review. This detailed analysis can equip homeowners with the knowledge to make informed decisions in a shifting real estate environment. St. Louis residents looking to buy or sell homes can rely on the expert services of MORE, REALTORS®, where our deep local knowledge and commitment to client welfare drive every transaction. Read the full report here.
Recent changes in the real estate industry have left many home buyers wondering if they need to sign an agreement before visiting an open house. The confusion stems from new practices that have emerged as a result of recent legal settlements affecting how agents work with buyers. The good news? If you’re just visiting an open house on your own, you don’t need to sign any kind of written agreement. The agent hosting the open house is there to represent the seller, not to bind you into a contract.
However, if you decide to work with an agent—meaning they start helping you find homes and setting up tours—that’s when you’ll likely need to sign an agreement. These agreements are designed to make sure everyone is on the same page about the services your agent will provide and what they’ll be paid. And remember, you’re in control—these terms are negotiable, so don’t hesitate to ask questions or request changes before you sign.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we’re committed to making the home-buying process as smooth as possible. If you have any questions or need further clarification, feel free to reach out to one of our professional agents. If you’d like to contact me directly, just click the “Email Dennis” link below: Email Dennis
The real estate industry is undergoing significant changes, especially concerning how commissions are handled between sellers and buyers’ agents. Recent legal settlements have led to new transparency rules, which clarify that sellers are not required to pay the commission for the buyer’s agent. This has raised concerns among potential homebuyers about the financial burden of paying their agent directly. However, these changes don’t necessarily mean you’ll be paying more out of pocket.
Understanding the Changes:
No Increase in Home Prices: The overall cost of homes hasn’t increased simply because of these rule changes. Home values remain the same. In fact, sellers who choose not to pay the buyer’s agent commission might offer their home at a lower price and still net the same amount as before. If a buyer needs a credit from the seller to cover their agent’s commission, the buyer might have to increase their offer to include the credit. But this adjustment merely brings the total cost back to what it would have been without the rule change.
No Extra Cash Needed: These changes do not increase the amount of cash a buyer needs to buy a home. Buyers can negotiate for a credit from the seller to cover their agent’s commission, ensuring that they don’t have to dip into additional savings to cover these costs.
Importance of a Knowledgeable Agent: In this new landscape, having a professional and knowledgeable buyer’s agent is more crucial than ever. A skilled agent understands the nuances of the market, can guide you through these changes, and is familiar with strategies to ensure you get a fair price. They’ll also structure your offer in a way that’s appealing to sellers while protecting your financial interests.
In conclusion, while it might seem daunting at first, these changes provide more transparency and can be negotiated in a way that doesn’t strain your finances. MORE, REALTORS® is here to guide you through these new waters, ensuring you get the best deal without unnecessary surprises.
In a recent telephone interview with an Inman News reporter, Michael Ketchmark, lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the groundbreaking Sitzer | Burnett case, emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) proposed settlement. Ketchmark and his team are keeping a close eye on how the real estate industry rolls out these changes, warning that any attempts to evade the new rules will be met with swift legal action. “If anyone thinks they’re going to be able to avoid the application of this settlement agreement and the law by creating some new forms or hiding this cooperation on new websites, they’re wrong,” Ketchmark stated. He also underscored the long-term impact of the settlement, anticipating that while it may take time, the free market will eventually adjust to lower commissions.
Ketchmark expressed concerns about Zillow’s business model, which he believes was built on practices now being challenged by the settlement. “We just cut the legs out from under that,” he said, referring to Zillow’s referral-based system. Looking to the future, Ketchmark highlighted the upcoming litigation against Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.
As these significant shifts in the industry unfold, it’s crucial for homebuyers and sellers to have knowledgeable and ethical representation. That’s where the agents at MORE, REALTORS® come in—dedicated professionals who are committed to navigating this evolving landscape while keeping your best interests at heart.
forAs a homeowner in the St. Louis metro area considering selling your property, one of the most pressing questions in the current real estate landscape is whether you should offer compensation to a buyer’s agent upfront. This question has gained significant importance due to the recent shifts in industry norms, especially following the National Association of Realtors (NAR) settlement of the Sitzer lawsuit and subsequent MLS rule changes. The outcome of these changes has dramatically altered how real estate transactions are approached, and it’s crucial to understand their implications on your selling strategy.
The Sitzer lawsuit settlement has made it clear that transparency and fair competition are now paramount in real estate transactions. Historically, it was customary for the seller to offer a commission to the buyer’s agent as an incentive to bring potential buyers to the table. However, with new regulations emphasizing transparency, the dynamics are shifting. The changes require more explicit disclosure of commissions, empowering buyers to negotiate their agent’s fees directly. This means that as a seller, you might not be obligated to offer upfront compensation to a buyer’s agent, but doing so can still play a strategic role in marketing your home effectively.
MLS rule changes have further transformed the landscape. Listings now clearly state what, if any, compensation is being offered to buyer agents, ensuring full transparency. This transparency means that the compensation for the buyer’s agent can now become a negotiating item between the buyer and the seller. Buyers are increasingly freed to include, as part of their offer, a request for a credit from the seller to cover the cost of their agent. This new approach can make the transaction more straightforward and tailored to the needs of both parties involved.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we understand the complexities of these changes and are here to guide you through the process. Our experienced agents are well-versed in the latest industry developments and can help you navigate these new waters effectively. Whether you decide to offer upfront compensation or negotiate it as part of the sale, our team will provide the expertise and support you need to make the best decision for your unique situation. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you successfully sell your home in this evolving market.
This week, on July 23rd, the St. Louis REALTORS® Association implemented new and revised contract forms and agreements for use by Realtors throughout St. Louis and the surrounding areas. These updates are a direct response to significant changes in industry practices resulting from the settlement of massive class action lawsuits by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). For a detailed breakdown of these changes, you can refer to the settlement agreement below.
The revisions aim to align current practices with the legal outcomes of these settlements, ensuring compliance and fostering transparency in real estate transactions. One of the pivotal changes is the inclusion of clear, consistent language that reflects new industry standards and practices mandated by the settlement. This initiative underscores the importance of adapting to evolving legal landscapes to maintain professional integrity and trust with clients.
Upcoming MLS Rule Changes
In addition to the new forms, there are upcoming changes to the MLS rules effective August 1. These new rules will prohibit the display of commission offers to agents working with buyers in the MLS. This change has generated considerable confusion and anxiety among real estate professionals. Many agents are either unaware of the impending changes or are scrambling to figure out workarounds. However, there are dedicated professionals who are well-informed and prepared to adapt seamlessly.
The prohibition on displaying commission offers is intended to enhance transparency in real estate transactions by focusing on the value of the property rather than the commission structures. Despite the noble intent, the rule change has sparked debates within the real estate community, with opinions varying widely on its potential impact.
Embracing Transparency at MORE
At MORE, REALTORS®, we have been closely following these lawsuits since 2019, fully aware that industry changes were imminent. Our proactive approach has allowed us to prepare thoroughly for these changes, ensuring that our agents are not only compliant but also well-versed in the new practices.
We wholeheartedly embrace the idea of total transparency in transactions. This includes being upfront about how our agents are compensated, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty, and whom they represent in each transaction. Our commitment to transparency ensures that clients can trust us to act in their best interests at all times.
In conclusion, the recent updates to contract forms and MLS rules are significant steps towards greater transparency and compliance in the real estate industry. At MORE, REALTORS®, we are ready to lead by example, demonstrating our dedication to these principles and ensuring that our clients receive the highest level of service and trust.
Starting August 17, 2024, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) is implementing a new requirement on its members that will impact home buyers and REALTORS® alike. This new rule mandates that REALTORS® must have a written agreement with buyers before showing them any homes. This change is required as part of the settlement agreement of multiple massive class-action lawsuits where NAR was accused of anti-competitive practices. The settlement aimed to increase transparency and fairness in real estate transactions, ensuring that both buyers and agents have a clear understanding of their relationship and obligations. However, there’s a lot of confusion surrounding the new requirement, including some “PSA” messages posted by agents on social media that refer to the required agreement as a “Buyer’s Agency” agreement.
A Buyer’s Agency agreement is used when you wish to engage an agent to represent you as a buyer and establishes obligations upon the agent, including fiduciary duties to put your interests ahead of all others (including themselves). This is certainly the agreement I would recommend buyers use in most cases once ready to commit to an agent. However, while this certainly meets the requirement, it is not the only type of agreement that satisfies NAR’s new rule. In fact, representation is not required at all. Yes, a written agreement is necessary, but it doesn’t have to be a full-blown buyer representation agreement. Any written agreement to show a property will suffice. The intent here is not to complicate the home buying process but to protect buyers and clarify the REALTOR®’s role and responsibilities, including the cost, if any, to the buyer and where the compensation is coming from. It ensures that you understand the services you’re getting and how your REALTOR® will be compensated, making the whole process smoother and more transparent.
Is compensation required under the agreement?
That is, of course, dependent on the agreement itself, but there is no requirement by the NAR settlement that buyers be charged anything to enter into an agreement to be shown a home. Naturally, if the agreement is a Buyer’s Agency agreement where you will, in fact, receive representation, the agent, like every other professional involved in the home buying process, will need to be compensated, and how much and who pays will need to be laid out.
How long does the agreement obligate me?
Again, there is no requirement for the agreement to last any period of time. If it’s simply a showing agreement, it may last long enough for the agent to walk you through the home.
What if the listing agent shows you the home?
If the listing agent is giving you a tour of the home (as the seller’s agent) and not “working with” you, then the agreement may not be required. Personally, though, I think it is still a good idea to use it for transparency so that you, as the buyer, clearly understand whose interest that agent is required to put ahead of yours.
What is required in the “buyer agreement”?
According to the NAR settlement, the following are the only requirements for the agreement that must be signed before showing a home to a buyer they are working with:
Specify and conspicuously disclose the amount or rate of any compensation the MLS Participant will receive from any source.
The amount of compensation must be objectively ascertainable and may not be open-ended (e.g., “buyer broker compensation shall be whatever amount the seller is offering to the buyer”).
Include a statement that MLS Participants may not receive compensation from any source that exceeds the amount or rate agreed to with the buyer.
Disclose in conspicuous language that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.
Include any provisions required by law.
At MORE, we are committed to providing exceptional service and ensuring complete transparency throughout your home buying journey. Our experienced agents are ready to guide you through this new process, making it as seamless as possible. Whether you’re a first-time homebuyer or looking for your next investment, MORE Realtors INLINE TEXT Link – goes to agent website MORE, REALTORS® is here to help you every step of the way.
A recent flash poll by T3 Sixty at the NAR Midyear Conference highlights significant dissatisfaction among real estate professionals regarding the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) and its handling of the ongoing commission lawsuit. View the entire report and survey results below.disa
Key Findings:
Approval of NAR’s Performance:
Only 30% of respondents approve of NAR’s overall performance.
A striking 63% disapprove, indicating widespread dissatisfaction.
Handling of Compensation Lawsuits:
Just 32% approve of NAR’s legal strategies.
A majority of 62% disapprove, showing deep concerns about the settlement’s impact.
At MORE Realtors, we understand the confusion and concerns surrounding these changes. Our experienced team is dedicated to helping homebuyers, sellers, and agents navigate this evolving landscape. We provide clear, comprehensive guidance to ensure you understand how the commission lawsuit outcomes will affect your real estate transactions. Contact us today to learn how we can assist you in making informed decisions in this shifting market.
Home sellers have reached a momentous $250 million settlement with HomeServices of America and its subsidiaries, including Long & Foster Companies, BHH Affiliates, LLC, and HSF Affiliates, LLC. This settlement, disclosed in a recent press release by the law firm representing the plaintiffs, resolves class action claims as part of a broader dispute over commission costs in the real estate industry.
In a landmark case held on October 31, 2023, a Missouri jury found HomeServices of America, along with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and Keller Williams, culpable of conspiring to inflate commission fees, resulting in nearly $1.8 billion in damages. While this settlement absolves HomeServices of America from further claims in this specific litigation, it does not extend to Berkshire Hathaway Energy or its affiliates, maintaining their exposure to potential liabilities.
The recent $250 million agreement contributes to a total exceeding $943.25 million in settlements reached in related cases over the past year. Earlier settlements include a $418 million agreement with NAR in March 2024, and others involving major industry players such as Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, Keller Williams, Compass, and Real Brokerage Inc., underscoring a significant reform movement within the real estate brokerage sector.
“These settlements mark a pivotal moment for American home sellers, who have historically been burdened with excessive commission fees,” remarked Benjamin D. Brown, Managing Partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. The lawsuit originated from Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, which challenged the NAR’s policy requiring home sellers to offer non-negotiable compensation to buyer brokers, significantly affecting the cost transparency and fairness in real estate transactions.
For more detailed information on the implications of these settlements and how they might affect your next real estate decision, consider consulting with a knowledgeable professional at MORE, REALTORS®, whose agents remain at the forefront of industry standards and practices.
In a significant development in the class-action lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and several major real estate entities, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri has granted preliminary approval for a proposed settlement. This lawsuit, led by plaintiffs Rhonda Burnett, Jerod Breit, Jeremy Keel, Hollee Ellis, and Frances Harvey, represents a class of U.S. homeowners who paid commissions to brokers upon the sale of their homes through multiple listing services during specific periods spanning from 2014 to the present. The court’s decision, as detailed in the document “Sitzer v NAR – Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement – Order Granted,” acknowledges the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement, setting the stage for final approval pending further review and a hearing scheduled for November 2024.
The complete details can be found in the courts order below.
Since the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the plaintiffs in the following lawsuits—Christopher Moehrl v. The National Association of Realtors et al., Rhonda Burnett (originally Sitzer) v. The National Association of Realtors et al., Dawin Niel Umpa v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., and Don Gibson v. The National Association of Realtors—reached a settlement agreement on March 15, 2024, which is still pending court approval and thus preliminary at this point, the topic has dominated industry conversations. The focus of these lawsuits on buyer’s agent commissions has attracted more media attention since mid-March than it seems to have received in the over 40 years I’ve been in the business before that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying all this attention is bad. In fact, I believe it is beneficial. I’ve long advocated for educating consumers, feeling that the more home buyers and sellers know, the better decisions they can make. This is why I’m rapidly approaching the milestone of 3,000 articles on the topic of real estate in St. Louis on this site.
Now, I don’t do this solely for altruistic reasons; sharing the information and knowledge I’ve gained either through experience or research is also self-serving. As a broker-owner of MORE, REALTORS®, I’ve put forth just as much effort in sharing knowledge with our agents, and I am blessed to be surrounded by real estate professionals who are as eager as I am to increase their knowledge and hone their skills to better serve clients. Here’s the reward for me: informed and knowledgeable consumers seek out better and more professional agents, like the ones we’re in business with, creating a win-win situation.
Having said all that, while the attention from the media is beneficial, unfortunately, there is a lot of incorrect information out there and assertions being made that don’t seem to be based on facts, but rather on opinion. Oh yes, I have opinions too, plenty of them, many of which are shared on this site, but to the extent possible, I try to base them on facts and include the sources of my opinions.
In the wake of recent legal developments, including a proposed settlement by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) in March addressing buyer agent commissions, the real estate industry finds itself at another critical juncture. This time, attention turns to a lawsuit spotlighted in my article from a week ago, “New Lawsuit Against NAR Spotlights Tying of MLS Access to Realtor Membership in Ongoing Commission Debate“, which challenges the longstanding practice of tying MLS access to Realtor association membership. Unlike the NAR settlement that focused on commission structures, this new legal action delves into the exclusivity of market information access, a matter that has long spurred debate and litigation.
A Recurring Theme in Real Estate Litigation
The intertwining of Realtor association membership and MLS access has been a contentious issue, sparking several lawsuits over the years. This relationship, critics argue, creates barriers to competition and innovation in the real estate market.
Significant Legal Precedents
A pivotal moment in this ongoing discourse was the “Thompson v. Metropolitan Multi-List, Inc. Lawsuit,” where the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 ruled against restricting MLS access to Realtor members in Georgia. This case set a significant precedent, affirming that such practices could violate federal antitrust laws if the MLS wielded “market power” in the relevant geographic market.
Further complicating the landscape, California courts in the late 1970s found similar restrictions in violation of state antitrust statutes, thereby requiring Realtor associations in the state to open their MLS to non-members.
Looking Ahead
As the real estate industry continues to evolve, the relationship between REALTOR® associations and MLS access remains a focal point for legal scrutiny and industry reform. The implications of these legal battles extend beyond the courtroom, potentially shaping the future of real estate transactions, market competition, and consumer choice.
While the NAR settlement and recent lawsuits highlight different facets of the industry’s challenges, they collectively underscore a broader call for transparency, fairness, and innovation in real estate practices.
Conclusion
The dialogue surrounding MLS access and REALTOR® association membership is far from concluded. As legal actions continue to unfold, stakeholders across the real estate spectrum must remain vigilant and adaptable to the changing regulatory and business environment. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’re keenly aware of these potential shifts and are proactively strategizing to ensure our agents are well-positioned to navigate any changes that may arise. Our focus remains steadfast on providing exceptional service to our clients, irrespective of the evolving industry dynamics. As always, we’re committed to transparency, adaptability, and unwavering professionalism.
The Council of Multiple Listing Services (CMLS), representing over 200 Multiple Listing Services nationwide, has filed a brief supporting the settlement reached between the parties in the lawsuit against MLS Property Information Network (MLS PIN). While this is not the settlement announced last week by the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), it involves one of the several lawsuits tied to the NAR settlement.
CMLS filed their brief in response to the one filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in February, which opposed the MLS PIN settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to change existing practices to lower commissions and increase competition. In their brief, CMLS points to data showing that a similar rule change adopted by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) in 2019 saved homebuyers an average of $1,000 per transaction by reducing buyer agent commissions.
The DOJ has opposed the MLS PIN settlement, asserting that it would not meaningfully benefit consumers. CMLS contends that the DOJ’s analysis is flawed and that its preferred solution – an outright ban on buyer agent compensation – could disrupt the real estate market and harm consumers.
It is doubtful that the judge will make a ruling in the MLS PIN case while the NAR settlement is pending. However, the briefs filed by the DOJ and CMLS in the MLS PIN lawsuit may have an impact on the decision regarding the NAR settlement.
Previously, I wrote about the settlement reached by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) aiming to resolve litigation concerning alleged anticompetitive practices, potentially leading to financial compensation for certain home sellers in St. Louis and beyond. This litigation, which centers on claims of inflated commission rates, could see a transformative resolution pending court approval expected by summer. If approved by the court, this settlement, alongside those reached with other corporate defendants like RE/MAX, Keller Williams, Realogy, and Compass, would provide eligible home sellers a pathway to claim financial redress for the commissions paid during the specified periods.
Eligibility Criteria and Key Details:
Moehrl v. NAR Eligibility:
Sold a home between March 6, 2015, and December 31, 2020.
Utilized a real estate agent or broker affiliated with specific defendants, including Keller Williams, RE/MAX, and Anywhere Real Estate, among others.
Paid a commission for the sale listed on a covered Multiple Listing Service (MLS) in certain areas.
Filing Deadline: The deadline to submit a claim is May 9, 2025.
Burnett et al. v. NAR Eligibility:
Sold a home within the eligible date range specified in the Long Form Notices.
Listed the sold home on an MLS in any part of the United States.
Paid a commission to any real estate brokerage in connection with the sale.
Not restricted to homes sold using agents from Anywhere, RE/MAX, or Keller Williams.
Filing Deadline: The deadline to submit a claim is May 9, 2025.
Next Steps for Eligible Home Sellers:
Verify Eligibility: Sellers should review the detailed eligibility criteria on the settlement websites to determine if their home sale qualifies.
Submit a Claim: To be considered for a payment, eligible sellers must file a claim by the May 9, 2025 deadline. Claim forms are accessible by clicking the links below:
Last week, I wrote an article about the settlement reached by the National Association of REALTORS® in pending litigation concerning buyer agency compensation. This includes the “Sitzer” (now Burnett), “Moehrl,” and “MLS PIN” suits, among others. As mentioned, this is an early stage in the process; the settlement agreement, although agreed upon by the parties involved, has not yet been filed with the court. Given these are large class action lawsuits alleging antitrust violations, numerous hurdles must be overcome. These could necessitate changes to the settlement terms on the path to court approval—if the court approves it at all.
Hurdles include the court holding a fairness hearing to assess if the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members. This hearing allows class members to express objections and concerns. Moreover, antitrust class action lawsuits like this one, which impact market competition and consumer protection, prompt the court to consider broader public interest implications when approving settlements. This attention often draws input from professional associations, consumer organizations, and, as seen in the MLS PIN suit, the United States, giving their opinion on the settlement’s sufficiency.
Ultimately, the decision rests with the judge, who will consider all these aspects.
I should have led with this, but I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. As a real estate broker with over four decades in the residential real estate industry, I have a keen interest in the legal facets of our business and the issues at hand, closely following these cases since 2019. I’m a staunch advocate for transparency and education for real estate professionals, clients, and everyone involved. The more accurate knowledge consumers have about buying and selling a home, the better choices they can make. This is especially true when selecting a real estate agent, as not all are created equal.
Back to the matter at hand.
What will the DOJ say about the NAR Settlement?
Assuming the Department of Justice files an amicus brief in this case, as they did with MLS PIN—a safe assumption, in my view—it’s intriguing to speculate on their comments regarding this settlement. While I lack a crystal ball or insider information, considering the DOJ’s Statement of Interest filed on February 15, 2024, in Nosalek V. MLS Property Information Network (MLS PIN), and assuming their opinion hasn’t shifted in the last five weeks, offers a logical foundation for analysis.
I sought an objective analysis from my trusty AI Assistant, which, for the sake of this discussion, is an outstanding attorney specializing in antitrust law (or at least that is what I’ve told it to think of itself as). Applying the DOJ’s recent statement to this settlement, here’s what it suggests the DOJ might say:
Inadequate Address of Core Antitrust Concerns: The settlement’s proposed rule changes fail to resolve the fundamental antitrust issues raised in the complaint fully. While allowing $0 cooperative compensation offers and requiring commission negotiation disclosures, the continued practice of blanket unilateral compensation offers to buyer brokers by sellers and listing brokers could perpetuate steering risks and obstruct genuine price competition.
Broad Release of Potential Antitrust Claims: The extensive release of antitrust claims against a wide range of parties, including NAR, REALTOR® associations, MLSs, and individual brokers and agents, is concerning. Given the settlement’s limited injunctive relief, this broad release might inadequately serve class members.
Insufficient Monetary Relief: The $418 million settlement fund, potentially inadequate for the damages at issue, may not ensure compensation for class members after litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. The settlement lacks a clear mechanism for maximizing class member payouts.
Potential Chilling Effect on Future Antitrust Challenges: The settlement could deter or complicate future anticompetitive practice challenges by immunizing modified rules from further scrutiny, making subsequent lawsuits more difficult.
Comparison to MLS PIN Settlement: Despite more extensive practice changes than the MLS PIN agreement, the settlement doesn’t effectively address core antitrust concerns, marginally improving over the MLS PIN agreement.
In conclusion, despite offering more monetary relief and practice changes than the MLS PIN agreement, the settlement inadequately addresses fundamental antitrust issues. The court must weigh whether the settlement’s limited benefits justify the broad release of claims and the potential chilling effect on future antitrust enforcement. As in the MLS PIN case, a more effective remedy might prohibit the seller-paid buyer broker commission model, fostering genuine market competition.
This is all based on publicly available information. We must wait to see the DOJ’s stance and whether the judge deems the settlement adequate.
Yesterday, I reported on the groundbreaking settlement proposed by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to resolve the ongoing litigation surrounding broker commissions. Today, I want to dive deeper into the specifics of this settlement agreement and what it means for homeowners and real estate professionals here in the St. Louis area.
Key Points of the NAR Settlement Agreement
Broad Coverage: The settlement class is expansive, including home sellers who listed properties on MLSs anywhere in the U.S. during specified date ranges and paid a commission to any brokerage. For the St. Louis region, sellers are covered if they sold homes between October 31, 2018, and the date of the official Class Notice.
Released Parties: The settlement releases a wide range of parties from future claims related to broker commissions, including NAR, REALTOR associations, and MLSs that adhere to the required practice changes. Brokerages with 2022 transaction volumes under $2 billion are also released if they comply with the new rules.
Practice Changes: The agreement mandates significant shifts in industry practices, including:
“eliminate and prohibit any requirement by the National Association of REALTORS®, REALTOR® MLS, or Member Boards that listing brokers or sellers must make offers of compensation to buyer brokers or other buyer representatives (either directly or through buyers), and eliminate and prohibit any requirement that such offers, if made, must be blanket, unconditional, or unilateral;”
“prohibit REALTOR® MLS Participants, subscribers, other real estate brokers, other real estate agents, and their sellers from (a) making offers of compensation on the MLS to buyer brokers or other buyer representatives (either directly or through buyers) or (b) requiring that offers of compensation be made on the MLS to buyer brokers or other buyer representatives (either directly or through buyers);”
“require that REALTOR® MLS Participants who work with buyers enter into written agreements with their buyer clients that specify the broker compensation and how it will be paid, including if it will be paid by the buyer;”
“require that REALTOR® MLSs and REALTOR® MLS Participants provide, with any MLS listings that include a listing broker’s offer of compensation to a buyer broker or other buyer representative (either directly or through buyers), (i) disclosure as to the amount of that offer of compensation and (ii) a searchable field that displays buyer broker compensation offers;”
“prohibit REALTOR® MLSs, REALTOR® MLS Participants, and REALTOR® Member Boards from taking any adverse action against any Person making offers of compensation to buyer brokers at any price, or no price, either on or off the MLS;”
Financial Payout: NAR will pay a total of $418 million over four years to resolve the claims, with the first payment of $5 million due within 30 days of preliminary approval of the settlement. What This Means for St. Louis
What This Means for St. Louis
For homeowners in the St. Louis area, this settlement could bring more transparency to the commission structure when selling a home. By removing the requirement for listing brokers to offer buyer broker compensation through the MLS, the agreement aims to give sellers more control over how commissions are negotiated and paid.
Real estate agents and brokerages in our region will need to adapt to these changes, focusing on educating clients about compensation options and ensuring compliance with the new rules. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’ve been preparing for these shifts and are ready to guide our clients through the evolving landscape.
The full text of the NAR settlement agreement can be found below. As always, I’ll continue to keep you informed about how these developments impact our local market.
Missouri Online Real Estate, Inc. 3636 South Geyer Road - Suite 100, St Louis, MO 63127 314-414-6000 - Licensed Real Estate Broker in Missouri
The owner and authors this site are providing the information on this web site for general informational purposes only and make no representations, warranties (expressed or implied) or guarantees of any kind whatsoever, as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or of any information found by following any link on this site. Furthermore, the owner and authors of this site will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any errors or omissions in information on this site, nor for the availability of this information. Additionally the owner and authors of this site will not be liable for for any losses, injuries or damages in any way from the display or use of this information or as the result of following external links displayed on this site, or by responding to advertisements displayed, or contained, on this site
In using this site, users acknowledge and agree that the information on this site does not constitute the provision of legal advice, tax advice, accounting services, investment advice, or professional consulting of any kind nor should it be construed as such. The information provided herein should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional tax, accounting, legal, or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action on this information, you should consult a qualified professional adviser to whom you have provided all of the facts applicable to your particular situation or question. None of the tax information on this web site is intended to be used nor can it be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
All of the information on this site is provided as is, with no assurance or guarantee of completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.
This site contains external links to other sites not owned or controlled by the owner of this site, therefore the owner of this site does not control or guarantee in any manner the accuracy or relevancy of any information obtained through following such links. Links contained on this site are for users convenience and users should exercise extreme caution when following links. Including a link on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the site linked to or any views or opinions expressed on the site, products or services offered on outside sites or the companies or organizations that own and operate outside sites.
This site may accept payment for advertising, for displaying advertisements, through affiliate relationships with companies or may receive referral fees or commissions from companies as a result of recommending or referring people to a website. This site may also accept free product samples, free services, gift cards or cash to review a product or service. All paid and sponsored content may not always be identified as such. Any product claim, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.
Last week, 
