North Carolina Regional MLS’s subscriber count is now more than 19,000 after adding Savannah MLS, Classic MLS and Realtors of Greater Augusta as owners, executives told Inman.
At Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-Aug. 1, 2024, the noise and misinformation will be banished, all your big questions will be answered, and new business opportunities will be revealed. Join us.
One of North Carolina’s largest multiple listing services has expanded into Georgia, adding more than 6,000 subscribers.
North Carolina Regional MLS — which will rebrand to a new, as-yet-undisclosed name on or before January 2025 — now has more than 19,000 agent, broker and appraiser subscribers after adding three Realtor association MLSs to its list of now-18 association owners.
Those MLSs are Savannah MLS (2,924 subscribers), Athens Area Association of Realtors and its Classic MLS (1,238 subscribers), and the Realtors of Greater Augusta (2,200 subscribers), adding 6,362 subscribers to NCRMLS. The switch to NCRMLS will go live in first-quarter 2025 for these subscribers.
“Georgia’s partnership with NCRMLS marks a significant advancement for real estate professionals in our region,” the three organizations said in a joint statement.
“This collaboration will establish a more comprehensive and interconnected MLS, providing access to a broader array of resources, information, connections, and opportunities. Ultimately, this development will empower our members to better serve their clients and grow their businesses.”
NCRMLS map as of July 2024
NCRMLS, based in Castle Hayne, is a wholesale cooperative MLS, meaning member associations and MLSs pay the regional MLS a wholesale price per member and then charge their members a retail price of their choice to access the MLS.
The joining MLSs continue to exist in name only, while NCRMLS provides the MLS services that the individual MLSs themselves used to provide directly to the associations and MLSs, who then re-sell the services to their subscriber base, according to Patrick LaJeunesse, NCRMLS’s chief data officer.
“While we are one MLS, we can be viewed as a federation of data-shares with one set of rules, centralization of operations and equal representation,” LaJeunesse told Inman in a statement.
“In the Cooperative Model of NCRMLS, Association/MLSs come together to combine resources and knowledge,” LaJeunesse added.
“Each association maintains its ownership and independence while leveraging the strength and broader reach of the unified collaborative entity. NCRMLS streamlines the broker’s process by eliminating the requirement to join multiple MLS providers, providing standardized data formats, and ensuring seamless access to information.
“This model fosters empowerment for both associations and their subscribers by promoting collaboration, sharing resources, and enhancing market visibility.”
This model, which is a form of consolidation, has enabled NCRMLS to grow relatively rapidly. NCRMLS went live in 2016 with more than 4,000 members. In the summer of 2021, the regional MLS surpassed 10,000 members. On Dec. 31, 2023, NCRMLS’s membership stood at 12,023.
“With Georgia’s partnership, NCRMLS is preparing to undergo a transformative moment, unveiling a new name and rebranding that reflects the unity and direction of our evolving organization,” said Daniel Jones, NCRMLS CEO, in a statement.
“This integration promises a seamless transition and enhanced technology, ensuring our members can continue working efficiently and effectively without disrupting their local MLS system. We are excited to embark on this journey of progress and innovation together, shaping the future of the MLS.”
Asked whether joining NCRMLS had anything to do with the commission lawsuits or settlements currently roiling the industry for any of the three joining organizations, past Savannah MLS Executive Officer Paula Nash told Inman the decision wasn’t directly related.
“Instead, it was a strategic move because Georgia was already planning to form its own regional MLS,” Nash said in a statement.
“By joining NCRMLS, the Georgia group could leverage the existing infrastructure and expertise of NCRMLS rather than starting from scratch with their own regional MLS. This decision was more about efficiency and practicality rather than being influenced by any legal issues faced by the organizations involved.”
Jones said the decision also benefited Georgia industry practitioners in the legal landscape.
“Centralizing operations eliminates confusion caused by various rules among different subscribers,” Jones said. “Having one set of rules is highly advantageous for subscribers in this complex legal environment. It streamlines processes, ensures consistency and promotes efficiency.”
At Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-Aug. 1, 2024, the noise and misinformation will be banished, all your big questions will be answered, and new business opportunities will be revealed. Join us.
It’s not just homesellers who are upset about the current real estate commission structure; more and more homebuyers are looking to the courts to upend how agents get paid.
Hanna Holdings, which touts itself as “the largest family-owned and -operated real estate brokerage in the United States,” is now facing an antitrust lawsuit alleging it conspired with other members of the National Association of Realtors to inflate buyer agent commissions, leading to inflated home prices paid by buyers.
While nationwide settlements have been announced in major commission cases brought by homesellers such as Sitzer | Burnett and Moehrl, none cover buyer claims.
On May 31, homebuyer Scott Davis filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Hanna Holdings, which is the parent company of the brokerage Howard Hanna Real Estate Services. Davis, a North Carolina resident, bought a home in Greensboro in 2022 using a buyer broker from Hanna Holdings subsidiary Allen Tate Real Estate.
“Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for agreeing, combining, and conspiring to impose, implement, and enforce anticompetitive restraints that reduce price competition in the markets for buyer-agent services in violation of federal antitrust law and state antitrust statutes, consumer protection laws, and common law,” the complaint says.
“Defendant’s unlawful, anticompetitive conduct causes America’s home buyers to pay inflated commissions for broker services they misrepresent are free, to pay inflated prices for the homes they purchase, and to receive reduced quality broker services.”
The complaint alleges Hanna Holdings violated federal and state antitrust laws by participating “in the establishment, maintenance, and implementation” of several NAR rules alleged to be anticompetitive, including the trade group’s cooperative compensation rule, also known as the Participation Rule, which requires listing brokers to make an offer of compensation to buyer brokers in order to submit a listing to a Realtor-affiliated multiple listing service.
The suit does not name any other defendants but does list several parties as co-conspirators of Hanna, including Anywhere (formerly, Realogy), RE/MAX, Keller Williams, HomeServices of America, Compass, eXp World Holdings, Redfin, Weichert Realtors, United Real Estate Group, Douglas Elliman, NAR, local Realtor associations, Realtor-affiliated MLSs, and franchisees and brokers of Hanna Holdings.
“Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the acts of its coconspirators, whether named or not named as defendants in this Complaint,” the filing says.
The complaint notes that plaintiff’s counsel, Korein Tillery and Lowey Dannenberg, have “brought suit against these co-conspirators … in related litigations.” The law firms represent plaintiffs in three other buyer commission suits known as, Batton 1, Batton 2 and Lutz, after their lead plaintiffs. In March, the Batton 2 plaintiffs dismissed Howard Hanna from their suit without prejudice, meaning the claims could be filed at a later time.
The Davis complaint seeks to represent two classes:
“Nationwide Class: All persons who, since December 1, 1996 through the present, purchased in the United States residential real estate that was listed on a NAR MLS.
Damages Class: All persons who, since December 1, 1996 through the present, purchased in the Indirect Purchaser States residential real estate that was listed on a NAR MLS.”
“Indirect purchaser states” refers to states that allow indirect purchasers — such as buyers who allegedly pay for buyer agents through commissions paid by sellers — to recover damages under their own antitrust laws. The complaint names 28 such states.
The complaint alleges violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act on behalf of the nationwide class, which is asking not for damages but for an order declaring that Hanna Holdings’ actions violated the law.
The complaint also alleges unjust enrichment and violation of state antitrust and consumer protection statutes on behalf of the damages class. The plaintiffs are asking the court for a jury trial and seek damages and/or restitution for the damages class, costs of the suit for the plaintiff, and a permanent injunction stopping Hanna Holdings “from establishing the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in this action in the future.”
Hanna Holdings declined to comment for this story.
At Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-Aug. 1, 2024, the noise and misinformation will be banished, all your big questions will be answered, and new business opportunities will be revealed. Join us.
Calls are piling up to overturn a district court’s final approval of nationwide settlements to resolve antitrust claims against major real estate franchisors Anywhere, Keller Williams and RE/MAX.
On July 1, law firm Knie and Shealy, which represents South Carolina homesellers in a commission suit filed in November, filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The notice informed the court that the firm’s clients — homesellers Benny D. Cheatham, Robert Douglass, Douglas Fender, and Dena Fender — would look to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a decision from Judge Stephen R. Bough granting the approvals on May 9.
The settlements for the three franchisors cover claims from the cases known as Sitzer | Burnett, Moehrl and Nosalek, as well as other, similar homeseller suits nationwide. The suits allege that some NAR rules violate the Sherman Antitrust Act by inflating seller costs.
The homesellers’ legal filings regarding the appeal so far do not contain any arguments, but earlier legal filings offer hints. On April 12, the homesellers objected to final approval of the franchisor settlements on the grounds that the settlements far exceed the scope of the original suits that led to the deals.
“The Moehrl and Sitzer/Burnett classes were originally certified for a total of 24 Multiple Listing Services (MLSs),” the filing reads.
“This settlement attempts to expand that class certification to more than 600 MLSs around the country. This despite the fact that real estate is, at its base, local. Many of those 600 MLSs operate and enforce their rules differently from other MLSs even within the same state, let alone across the country.
“It is also easy to conflate the illegal activity these MLSs engaged in with the means by which it was accomplished. These MLSs may have used many of the same rules, but often enforced them in various ways. The participants in these MLSs took part in fixing prices for commissions, the actual illegal activity, using rules adopted for its particular MLS, though they may have used similar instrumentalities to do it.”
The South Carolina homesellers also objected that the combined settlement amount among the three franchisors, $208.5 million, “is far too low to adequately compensate the massive number of injured parties here.” The filing stresses that the plaintiffs in the Moehrl and Sitzer | Burnett cases should not be able to hinder other absent class members’ ability to try their own cases.
“Plaintiffs in these cases have bargained away rights of the citizens of other states in order to ensure that their own cases were settled, their own clients received cooperation at trial, and their own fees and expenses of trial paid,” the filing reads.
“They did not conduct even the barest of discovery into the conduct of this conspiracy in other states because they could not. Yet it is their contention that $208,500,000 is sufficient to make whole absent class members in radically different circumstances and in radically different conspiratorial environments.”
The homesellers also objected to the deals’ release of franchisees from liability without requiring them to pay anything to the people they allegedly harmed or change anything about their practices.
“In order to be effective, these settlement agreements should make mandatory adoption of these practice changes as a condition of owning a franchise and the failure to follow those provisions a condition exposing the franchisees to revocation of the franchise,” the filing reads.
“Another alternative would be an injunction that forbids the Seller from making an offer of compensation to the buyer broker at all. This alternative is proposed by the Department of Justice in its Statement of Interest of the United States in Nosalek. This would stop the price fixing behavior, the actual illegal activity, from recurring.”
“Antitrust law is designed to deter bad actors,” the filing adds. “Here, by requiring the franchisees to neither pay nor change, it is unclear how these settlements further the purposes of antitrust law.”
Finally, the homesellers protested that the deals will only be in effect for five years.
“Five years is simply inadequate based on these Defendants’ decades long practice of fixing the commissions for both sides of the sale, and their highly profitable results, the surreptitious return to this practice can almost be guaranteed unless clear prohibitions against it are put in place for a substantially longer period of time,” the filing reads.
“The history of this industry shows an incorrigible predilection for the fixing of commissions.”
“Since entering into the settlement in October 2023, RE/MAX, LLC has been committed to obtaining final court approval releasing all U.S. RE/MAX Broker/Owners and affiliates from claims in the Burnett (formerly Sitzer), Moehrl, and Nosalek cases,” a RE/MAX spokesperson told Inman in a statement.
“RE/MAX, LLC is pleased the district court granted final approval in May. That said, appeals of the order are neither unusual or unexpected, and RE/MAX, LLC will continue to vigorously defend the settlement during the appeal process. Ultimately, the Company believes the settlement is fair and reasonable and that the district court’s order should be upheld.”
Keller Williams declined to comment for this story. Inman has reached out to Anywhere and Michael Ketchmark, lead plaintiffs’ counsel in Sitzer | Burnett, for comment. We will update this story if and when responses are received.
The appeals may delay implementation of the settlements in which Anywhere, RE/MAX and Keller Williams agreed to pay $83.5 million, $55 million and $70 million, respectively. No one in the settlement classes who has made a claim will receive payment until any appeals have been resolved.
The franchisors are also not required to implement the business practice changes they agreed to until after the appeals process, when the settlements will become effective. These changes include no longer requiring franchisees and their affiliated agents to join or be members of the National Association of Realtors or follow the Realtor Code of Ethics or NAR’s multiple listing service policy handbook.
The complaints, filed by a San Diego resident, seek class-action status and accuse the real estate companies of violating state and federal privacy laws due to their use of third-party tracking pixels.
At Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-Aug. 1, 2024, the noise and misinformation will be banished, all your big questions will be answered, and new business opportunities will be revealed. Join us.
Zillow and Redfin are the targets of wiretapping suits seeking class-action status accusing them of violating state and federal privacy laws for allegedly sending companies such as Facebook parent Meta and Google parent Alphabet consumers’ personal data after they viewed agent-created video home tours.
San Diego County resident Guillermo Mata filed separate complaints against Zillow and Redfin on June 25, accusing them of disclosing personally identifiable information — including names and emails — and prerecorded video viewing activity to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
“Specifically, Defendant uses third-party code to track prerecorded videos its subscribers watch and sends that data to its third-party code vendors along with subscribers’ [personal information], all without its subscribers’ valid consent,” the complaints say.
“Defendant programmed such third-party tracking technology into its website for advertising purposes and to increase its profits,” the complaints add.
“Defendant knew that such tracking technology would transmit site visitors’ activity, including records of which video tours they have watched, as the entire purpose of implementing such technology is so that Defendant can target advertisements or send marketing emails through the technology’s third-party providers.”
Mata registered for consumer accounts on the websites of both companies, according to the complaints.
“In addition to such prerecorded video tour walkthroughs, Defendant has also knowingly deployed third-party tracking pixels and other third-party tracking technologies on its Zillow.com webpages,” the complaint against Zillow reads.
“Such tracking technology sends user activity information to third parties including Reddit, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc. (‘Meta’), Microsoft Corporation, Alphabet, Inc., and Snap, Inc. (Snapchat).”
The complaint against Redfin also names Oracle Corp. as a third-party recipient of user activity data.
That complaint also pointed to a February 2024 public filing in which Redfin acknowledged its potential liability for its use of pixel technology: “We use evolving tools and technology, such as pixels, in the operation of our websites. We are from time to time involved in, and may in the future be subject to, enforcement actions and private third-party claims arising from the laws to which we are subject. This includes third party claims relying on older legislation as the basis for allegations of consumer data privacy violations against companies using new technology.
“Companies using tracking technology, including Redfin, have been the subjects of recent data privacy lawsuits brought by third-parties alleging that the use of this modern technology violates consumer privacy as defined by older laws. Many of these lawsuits have not been fully litigated, or have settled, resulting in a current state of uncertainty in the law. In addition, many cyber carriers are reconsidering how, and if, to cover losses related to pixel based claims. Our use of such technology could subject us to expensive litigation, and to greater loss exposure due to insurance limits.”
The complaints seek orders banning Zillow and Redfin from “further unauthorized disclosure of consumers’ [data],” punitive damages, statutory damages of no less than $2,500 for each Video Privacy Protection Act violation and $5,000 for each California Invasion of Privacy Act violation, and attorney’s fees and costs. Both complaints allege violation of the state and federal privacy laws.
The Zillow complaint seeks to represent two classes:
“All persons in the United States with a Zillow account and who requested or viewed a video walkthrough tour on or through Zillow.com during the applicable limitations period.
“All persons in California with a Zillow account and who requested or viewed a video walkthrough tour on or through Zillow.com during the applicable limitations period.”
The Redfin complaint also seeks to represent two classes:
“All persons in the United States with a My Redfin account and who requested or viewed a guided video tour on or through Redfin.com during the applicable limitations period.”
“All persons in California with a My Redfin account and who requested or viewed a guided video tour on or through Redfin.com during the applicable limitations period.”
Inman has reached out to Zillow and Redfin for comment and will update this story if and when responses are received.
Effective immediately, listing brokers and agents can submit for-sale listings to the MLS without offering any cooperating compensation to the buyer broker.
At Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-Aug. 1, 2024, the noise and misinformation will be banished, all your big questions will be answered, and new business opportunities will be revealed. Join us.
A large broker-owned multiple listing service that has attracted the attention of the Department of Justice is changing its commission-related rules, despite the federal agency’s view that the rules don’t go far enough.
On June 20, MLS Property Information Network (MLS PIN) emailed its subscribers to inform them that, effective immediately, listing brokers and agents could submit for-sale listings to its platform without offering any cooperating compensation to the buyer broker.
The change is part of a proposed settlement in a case brought by homesellers known as Nosalek, in which MLS PIN is a defendant. That deal has met criticism from the DOJ’s antitrust division because it continues to allow pre-emptive offers of compensation to be made through the MLS as well as elsewhere. In a statement of interest in the case, the antitrust enforcer called for “an injunction that would prohibit sellers from making commission offers to buyer brokers at all.”
In order to address the DOJ’s concerns, the plaintiffs and MLS PIN have made multiple amendments to the settlement deal, but after the agency continued to object, MLS PIN pushed back in court, saying that the DOJ’s proposal itself violates antitrust law and the First Amendment’s free speech provision. MLS PIN also chose not to opt in to a settlement reached by the National Association of Realtors which would have required MLS PIN to remove offers of compensation from the MLS.
“After careful review, MLS PIN has chosen not to join the proposed NAR settlement,” MLS PIN told subscribers in the June 20 email.
“Instead, MLS PIN has decided to move forward with its own proposed settlement with the Nosalek plaintiffs. Even though MLS PIN’s rules changes presented as part of the settlement in Boston are still awaiting final court approval, MLS PIN has decided to start implementing those rules changes now.”
Like federal commission suits Moehrl and Sitzer | Burnett, Nosalek seeks class-action status and alleges that the sharing of commissions between listing and buyer brokers inflates seller costs and is a conspiracy in restraint of trade, a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. MLS PIN, which has a full-time staff of 60 employees, boasts 44,600 subscribers in six New England states and New York.
On June 24, Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts paused the legal proceedings in Nosalek, staying the case pending a ruling on the final approval of the NAR settlement after a fairness hearing on Nov. 26. Saris gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file for preliminary approval of the MLS PIN settlement after that ruling. After that filing, the DOJ “will have 90 days to review the settlement agreement as provided in the Class Action Fairness Act,” Saris wrote.
In a June 21 filing, the DOJ noted it had not been provided the entirety of the MLS PIN settlement agreement as it currently stands and asked Saris to “order that the Plaintiffs produce to the United States all parts of their proposed agreement, including any confidential side agreement.” Saris’s subsequent order does not mention this request.
Regarding MLS PIN’s rule changes, the first change is that property listings no longer have to have offers of cooperating compensation.
“If your seller instructs you not to offer compensation, enter a value of 0 into the compensation fields in [the] Pinergy [MLS platform],” the email reads.
“We would also remind all subscribers that MLS PIN’s Rules and Regulations have never prohibited the seller, the buyer, the listing broker, and the cooperating broker from negotiating and mutually agreeing upon any compensation that differs from the value in MLS PIN.”
MLS PIN also said it would roll out other changes under the proposed settlement “as soon as possible,” though it did not specify when and said it would keep subscribers “apprised of this timeline.”
According to a flyer from MLS PIN, those additional changes are:
“Offers of compensation, if any, will be made by the seller. Listing brokers and cooperating brokers will no longer split commissions.
Listing agreements must disclose that the seller is neither required to offer compensation nor required to accede to any cooperating broker’s request for compensation. The listing broker must disclose this to the seller before the seller signs the listing agreement.
If a seller elects to offer compensation, the listing agreement must also say that the cooperating broker will be an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement with the right to enforce the same.
Before posting a listing, the listing broker must certify, in a checkbox designated for this purpose in Pinergy, that the listing broker has notified the seller of the seller’s rights not to offer compensation and not to accede to a cooperating broker’s request for compensation.”
In its email, MLS PIN reminded its subscribers that the court had not officially approved the settlement’s rule changes.
“If the Court in Boston does not approve our settlement, we may need to further modify our rules and Pinergy or revert to our previous rules,” the email reads.
MLS PIN also said it would provide education and training on the changes, including “further communication, video, timelines, and details in the following weeks.”
Inman asked MLS PIN why it decided not to join the proposed NAR settlement, why it decided to start implementing rule changes now, and how its subscribers would be impacted if the MLS had to walk back or otherwise modify those rule changes. MLS PIN declined to comment.
The DOJ also declined to comment for this story.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to note that the DOJ declined to comment.
