Real Estate Lawsuits and Trends

Real Estate Lawsuits and Trends Summary

As we approach year-end, you may be starting to map out your business plan and office policy manual for 2026. If so, we thought you might like the following update of major real estate lawsuits and trends impacting  the residential real estate landscape. Here’s a list of relevant titles to review.

Title: Acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate Inc by Compass, Inc

• Announced Sept 22, 2025 and expected to close in the second half of 2026.
• The combination brings together approx 340,000 real estate professionals globally, operating in every major U.S. city and serving 120 countries/territories, and will control a very large share of the U.S. residential market with a company valued around $10 billion, including assumed Anywhere debt of $2.6 billion.
• For home buyers and home sellers, the combined firm promises more integrated services (listing + title + escrow + relocation) under one umbrella, which may reduce friction in transactions.
• Regulators may require divestitures in markets where Compass already has a strong presence, as was the case in the recent consent decree of the DOJ in the merger of Black Knight and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE).
• Some smaller brokerages and independent agents see this consolidation as reducing competition, which may weaken their negotiating leverage or access to certain listings — if more listings are kept “in-house” or exclusive to the combined firm’s network rather than exposed to the broader market.

• A possible outcome is a transformed, vertically integrated brokerage–services platform rivaling Zillow’s ecosystem –- for example (e.g., Compass-Anywhere title/escrow bundles).

Title: Compass v. Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS)

• Compass argues that NWMLS’s rules force nearly all listings publicly into NWMLS’s system, blocking Compass’s “three-phased marketing” strategy (including a private exclusive phase) and thereby limiting seller choice and innovation in the Seattle/greater Washington state market.
• In its motion to dismiss, NWMLS counters that its rules promote transparency, fairness, and full market access for buyers and brokers, and that Compass is the one trying to “cherry-pick” the rules (i.e., hide its own listings while still demanding full access to other brokers’ listings).

• A trial date has been set: the court has scheduled the trial to begin in June 2026.

• In early August 2025, the court denied NWMLS’s motion to pause discovery (i.e., they cannot indefinitely delay having to provide relevant documents/evidence while their motion to dismiss is pending).

• The motion to dismiss the case is critical: If NWMLS succeeds in getting Compass’s case dismissed early, that could shorten or alter the battle. But if not, the case will proceed fully toward trial – thus increasing the defendant’s expense of continued litigation.

Title: Compass v. Zillow

• In June 2025, Compass filed an antitrust lawsuit against Zillow in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• The core allegation: Zillow introduced a policy (sometimes called the “Zillow ban” by Compass) that any home listing publicly marketed and not uploaded to a multiple-listing service (MLS) and to Zillow within one business day would be banned from Zillow’s platform.
• Compass claims this policy is anticompetitive because it targets the Compass marketing strategy of “private exclusives” (listings marketed to a brokerage’s audience before broad public listing) and leverages Zillow’s dominant position in online home-search to suppress competition.
• Zillow defends the policy, arguing it is reasonable to require listings to be broadly available (via MLS or uploaded) so that buyers get fair access — and says Compass is using antitrust law to impose its preferred business model on Zillow.

• For sellers / brokerages: the outcome may affect how “coming soon” or “private exclusive” marketing can be used, and how listings are distributed (publicly vs privately) before MLS debut.
• For the industry: because Zillow is a dominant portal and many listings flow through it, the case has ripple effects across competition, brokerage listing strategies, and possibly consumer access to listings.

• The policy at issue: listings publicly marketed but not entered in the MLS within one business day may be excluded from Zillow’s platform.
• Status: Ongoing litigation. Expect dispositive motions, potential injunctions, discovery.

Title:  Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc.

• Final approval of the settlement was granted on September 29, 2025 by the Court (Judge Patti B. Saris).
• The settlement class is defined as: residential‐real-estate sellers who sold property listed on MLS PIN’s multiple listing service, during the class period from December 17, 2016 through and including the date of final judgment and dismissal. Claim form submission deadline: December 15, 2025.

• Required changes: Elimination of any requirement that seller-brokers or sellers must make offers of buyer-broker compensation; prohibition on participating MLS PIN members and subscribers from making or sharing offers of buyer-broker compensation in a listing; removal of buyer-broker compensation‐specific fields in MLS PIN’s listing system.
• While the settlement was approved and the case dismissed with prejudice (as against MLS PIN for the released claims) — future suits against other MLSs or brokers/brokerages may proceed under similar theories.

Title: DOJ v. NAR 

• Key Update: Jan 13, 2025 — U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear NAR’s bid to block the DOJ probe. The denial left intact the appeals-court result allowing the DOJ’s investigation/proceedings to continue. This was a critical procedural milestone because it removed a potential early roadblock for DOJ enforcement with its Civil Investigative Demands (CID).
• Ongoing: DOJ retains investigatory/enforcement authority; multiple private cases and MLS-level settlements/proceedings continue to be litigated or reviewed. Industry observers note the sector is still adapting to the post-settlement rules, and additional litigation and regulatory engagement remain possible. Recent industry coverage indicates the rule changes are being implemented but that disputes and follow-on suits (and DOJ interest) are ongoing.
• The DOJ still has authority to investigate and (if it chooses) to bring enforcement claims against NAR or related bodies — the high-court denials and appeals rulings left that path open.
• The March 2024 settlement altered industry practice immediately, but the DOJ’s separate interest and challenges (especially at the MLS level) mean additional litigation or remedies could appear regionally or nationally.

Title: Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s case against Zillow Group, Inc. (Zillow) and Redfin Corporation

• On September 30, 2025, the FTC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Zillow and Redfin claiming that the deal violates Sherman Act, Clayton Act and FTC Act, and seeks structural relief (divestitures or injunctions).  The complaint alleges that in February 2025, Zillow paid Redfin $100 million and made related contractual arrangements by which Redfin would exit the “multifamily rental advertisement” market (i.e., large apartment-building rental ads) and transfer its advertising customers, staff and listings to Zillow.
• In parallel, five U.S. states (Virginia, Arizona, Connecticut, New York and Washington) also filed an antitrust suit against Zillow and Redfin, alleging similar claims.
• Precedent for digital platform/real‐estate models: Because Zillow and Redfin operate online platforms/marketplaces, the case could have broader implications for how antitrust law treats platform consolidation, pay-to-exit arrangements, and digital listing services. The “hybrid” theory of restraint + acquisition is noteworthy.
• Impact on the rental listing/advertising industry: whether property managers/landlords or renters report changes, and how listing platforms respond. Whether other big platforms alter their behavior in anticipation of enforcement (listing policy changes, exclusivity clauses, etc).

Title: Class action lawsuits related to Zillow’s agent/referral programs – Taylor v Zillow

• In September 2025, a class-action lawsuit was filed (in the Western District of Washington) by a homebuyer (Alucard Taylor) against Zillow alleging deceptive practices: that Zillow steers buyers to Zillow-affiliated “Flex” agents via its website, takes up to 40% commission from those agents without disclosure, and thereby inflates costs for buyers and sellers.
• The complaint claims violations of state consumer protection laws, federal statutes such as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and unjust enrichment. Taylor is represented by a seasoned antitrust law firm.
• Status: Class-action in early stages.

Title:  Copyright infringement suit by CoStar Group, Inc. against Zillow.

• In July 2025, CoStar sued Zillow in federal court (Southern District of New York) alleging that Zillow used tens of thousands of CoStar’s copyrighted (and watermarked) property photos without license, distributed them (including via syndication to other portals), and seeks damages potentially exceeding $1 billion.
• Zillow syndicated those property photos, although they have since removed them.

• Status: Litigation ongoing.

Title: Gibson et al v. NAR

• It names as defendants the National Association of REALTORS® (“NAR”) and a number of major brokerages (e.g., Compass, Inc., Redfin Corporation, eXp World Holdings, Inc., Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, Howard Hanna Realty).
• The key allegation: that NAR and the brokerages conspired (via rules and practices) to inflate the commissions paid by home sellers — specifically by requiring or effectively enforcing that when a home is listed on an MLS, the seller must offer compensation to the buyer-broker. That “offer of compensation” requirement is sometimes called the “participation rule.”
• Because of the sizable verdict (in Burnett), Gibson was filed shortly afterwards (it uses a broader scope: national rather than Missouri-only).
• The plaintiffs argue that by having such uniform practices across markets (via NAR rules, MLS rules, or broker practices), the industry has effectively fixed or kept commission rates artificially high.
• Because settlement discussions and appeals are ongoing, the full ramifications are still playing out — including how the model of buyer-agent compensation will change industry-wide.
• Most defendants have settled with a pool settlement totalling $100,000 total so far. There was preliminary approval of the proposed settlement with Hanna Holdings and other brokerages on October 3, 2025.

Title: Consumer-buyer suits: home buyers’ cases – Batton 2 – Filed Nov 2, 2023 (N.D.Ill.)

• Filed by homebuyers targeting several large brokerages (e.g., Compass, Inc., Redfin Corporation, eXp World Holdings, Inc., Weichert Realtors, United Real Estate Group) and possibly others. The plaintiffs allege antitrust violations involving buyer‐agent commissions, steering of buyers to higher-commission listings, and harm to buyers via inflated costs.
• The Batton 2 lawsuit expanded: as of November 27, 2024, twenty-two additional home-buyer plaintiffs from 19 states were added.

• On September 29, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, estimating potential damages in the “tens of billions” of dollars if certification is granted.

• Watch for: how the data issues from MLSs (i.e., commission/transaction datasets) get resolved — this has been a bottleneck for the plaintiffs. Also, see if any settlement discussions begin (though no major ones publicly reported yet for the buyer-side suits).

Title:  Cwynar v. The Real Brokerage, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2025) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

• The list of Buyers may be limited if the Court rules that buyers are indirect purchasers of buyer brokerage services who thus are not allowed to sue under federal antitrust laws, but may sue under state antitrust laws.
• The 47-page Complaint details the alleged NAR-related conspiracy among Real Brokerage, Realty ONE Group, Vanguard Properties, and The Agency to inflate buyer-agent commissions nationwide.
• NAR is not a defendant; NAR is a co-conspirator. The complaint references NAR extensively as the architect and enforcer of the “Participation Rule” (also called the Mandatory Commission Rule). It alleges that the defendant brokerages “conspired with and through NAR” and its local MLSs to maintain artificially high buyer-agent commissions.

Title: TAN v. National Association of Realtors (NAR)

• TAN (Top Agent Network) filed suit in May 2020 against NAR challenging NAR’s “Clear Cooperation Policy” (CCP) — a rule requiring listings to be submitted to a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) within one business day of publicly marketing the property.

• The complaint alleges that the policy is anticompetitive, limits how agents/sellers market their homes (especially off-MLS or “pocket listings”), deprives consumers of choice, and protects existing MLS/association incumbent players.

• As of January 2025, TAN and NAR agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice (meaning TAN may re-file later) while NAR “continues to deliberate” the policy. It’s somewhat in limbo: the case has been reopened, pleadings amended, but also there is this dismissal agreement. So its exact trajectory is unsettled.

• TAN is a major antitrust/competition case that is active (though with some procedural complexity) against NAR concerning the “Clear Cooperation Policy.”

Title: Homie Technology, Inc. v. National Association of REALTORS® (“NAR”):

• Homie, a Utah-based brokerage, filed an antitrust lawsuit in August 2024 against NAR and several major brokerages (including Anywhere Real Estate Inc., HomeServices of America, Inc., RE/MAX, LLC) alleging that NAR’s rules and the brokerages’ conduct improperly restrained competition, particularly targeting Homie’s low-fee business model. Homie claimed violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Utah antitrust law, and tortious interference with economic relations.

• District Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Homie’s claims with prejudice, unless Homie files an appeal, which Homie did in August 2025. The court emphasized: “antitrust laws are intended to protect competition, not individual competitors.” “A plaintiff cannot suffer an antitrust injury caused by a conspiracy among its competitors to raise prices.” Because Homie alleged the rules enabled higher commissions, which as a discount competitor gave it an attractive entry point, the court found the pleaded facts incompatible with antitrust harm.

• Good case to review with respect to the Group Boycott issue when brokers conspire to steer listings away from competing brokers.