HousingWireHousingWire
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is continuing its quest to unshackle itself from antitrust litigation surrounding its three-way Realtor association membership agreements and MLS access.
On Tuesday, NAR and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the DeYoung suit by arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. NAR has also filed motions to dismiss the Hardy suit, the Muhammad suit and the Eytalis suit, each of which allege similar claims.
Filed in early January 2025 by Carla DeYoung, Tammy Jo Williams, Darlene Currie and Carlos Alvarez, the Louisiana-based DeYoung suit includes several defendants besides NAR — the Greater Baton Rouge Association of Realtors (GBRAR), New Orleans Metropolitan Association of Realtors, Bayou Board of Realtors, Greater Central Louisiana Realtors Association, Realtor Association of Acadiana, Louisiana Realtors, ROAM MLS, and Kenneth Damann, an executive at GBRAR.
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants have engaged in unlawful tying arrangements that compel membership to Realtor associations in order to gain access to MLS data. They feel this is a barrier to trade.
Additionally, the plaintiffs take issue with NAR’s commission lawsuit settlement agreement and say that the trade group’s handling of the Sitzer/Burnett suit, as well as the business practice changes implemented by the settlement, resulted in “emotional distress.”
“While Plaintiffs’ claims are numerous, the facts supporting them are paltry. Plaintiffs assert claims ranging from antitrust, First Amendment violations, Fair Housing Act violations, and common law torts. Plaintiffs also include an apparent collateral attack on a court-approved and final class action settlement,” the filing states. “Yet, Plaintiffs do not plead any plausible facts supporting these wide-ranging theories or their demands for extraordinary injunctive and monetary relief.”
The defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ dislike of a ROAM MLS policy that requires agents to join the Realtor association in order to access the platform is insufficient to state an antitrust claim, nor can they invoke the U.S. Constitution or fair housing laws.
Additionally, the defendants feel that the plaintiffs’ claims against NAR’s commission lawsuit settlement agreement are an “improper collateral attack.”
“These allegations are improper, vague, and untethered from any potential legal violation,” the motion states.
The defendants also note in their motion that while the plaintiffs claim that access to ROAM MLS is “essential” for them to do their jobs, some claim they have canceled their memberships.
