The lawsuit, which began in August, challenges the requirement that agents belong to local, state and national real estate agent associations. NAR previously sought dismissal of the lawsuit in November.
Whether you’re refining your business model, mastering new technology, or finding a strategy to take advantage of the next market boom, Inman Connect New York prepares you to take a bold step. The next chapter is about to begin. Please join us. Join us and thousands of other real estate leaders from January 22-24, 2025.
The National Association of Realtors and other industry groups have asked a judge for a second time to dismiss a Michigan lawsuit over the so-called tripartite agreement.
The case first began in August, when two Michigan brokers and an agent sued over antitrust violations. The lawsuit specifically targets requirements for industry members to belong to local, state, and national real estate agent organizations in order to access multiple listing services.
The plaintiffs accused the industry group of civil conspiracy, economic coercion, and unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.
But NAR and the other defendants asked the judge in a filing Wednesday to dismiss the lawsuit. In their filing, the plaintiffs said they “do not show how the alleged conduct affected competition,” and, among other things, the allegations are “vague and conclusive, making it difficult to state an antitrust claim.” It lacks the necessary plausible facts.” The filing also argues that the plaintiffs have not shown that they suffered any harm from the alleged antitrust violations.
Additionally, the filing states that the lawsuit is actually a “collateral attack” on the Antitrust Commission settlement that NAR agreed to last year. The filing said the attacks were “inappropriate and untimely” and that the settlement is part of an unrelated class action lawsuit.
“It is difficult to ascertain the significance of Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the settlement to their claims,” the filing states.
News of the filing was first reported by Real Estate News.
The plaintiffs filed suit in accordance with the settlement. The argument outlined in the original complaint is that the move to encourage the settlement to eliminate “guaranteed brokerage fees,” or offers of compensation from seller’s agents to buyer’s agents, would “negate the value created by mandatory membership requirements.” “It has been significantly reduced.” MLS has previously offered such compensation, but the latest settlement prohibits that practice.
“This truly eliminates the sole purpose of the NAR and MAR sponsored MLS system by eliminating the guarantee of compensation between brokers,” the original August complaint states. There is.
The plaintiffs, brokers Douglas Hardy and Glenn Champion, and their agent Dylan Tent, also argue that requiring membership in various real estate agent associations “essentially holds hostage access to the MLS.” and that the rule changes facilitating NAR’s settlement “potentially” caused such problems. “Discriminatory Pricing” and Fair Housing Violations.
In addition to NAR, the plaintiffs named as defendants the Michigan Association of Realtors, the Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors, the Metropolitan Association of Realtors, the North Oakland County Board of Realtors, and Real Comp II, Michigan’s largest MLS. .
In addition to Michigan, lawsuits have also been filed in Pennsylvania, Texas, California, and Louisiana challenging the requirement that agents belong to local, state, or national real estate agent organizations.
NAR and other defendants previously asked a judge to dismiss the Michigan case in November. At the time, they argued, “What Plaintiffs are alleging is nothing more than a desire to obtain the benefits of membership without membership.”
The November motion to dismiss states, “The factual allegations in paragraph 9 do not provide a consistent legal theory, much less the particularity of fact necessary to meet the standard for a claim of antitrust violation.” he claimed.
Plaintiffs responded by filing an amended complaint later that month. But NAR and the other defendants argued in a motion to dismiss this week that the amended complaint also fails to make adequate arguments and “fails for the same reasons as the original complaint.”
The fate of the case now rests with the judge, who must decide whether to throw out the case or allow it to proceed.
Read the full rejection here (if you don’t see the document, please refresh the page).
Email Jim Dalrymple II
