Yet another lawsuit filed by a broker against the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) and local associations has been dismissed, the second time in less than two weeks that a federal judge has ruled that brokers suing over Realtor® membership requirements and MLS access failed to set forth valid claims of antitrust violations.
Judge Joseph F. Leeson wrote in a detailed 50-page opinion that Maurice Muhammad, a Pennsylvania-based broker who originally filed the lawsuit back in late 2024, only offered “bare and conclusory allegations” that NAR and the associations conspired in price-fixing or steering. Leeson also found his allegation that rules restricting MLS access to Realtor® membership violate antitrust laws unconvincing.
“Muhammad has…failed to sufficiently allege that the membership requirement to access the MLS imposed an unreasonable restraint on trade,” Leeson wrote.
In a statement shared with RISMedia, an NAR spokesperson said the organization is “pleased” with the ruling.
“This decision reinforces the National Association of Realtors®’s position that its policies foster competition and are not discriminatory. Like other national membership organizations, NAR’s integrated structure is essential to the value we provide our members,” the spokesperson wrote.
Muhammad could not immediately be reached for comment.
The dismissal comes after a judge in Texas threw out a similar lawsuit by broker Lou Eytalis, who also argued that mandatory fees and requirements that agents join Realtor® associations were illegal.
Since last summer, brokers have filed half a dozen lawsuits naming NAR and their local associations, broadly focused on fees and rules around MLS access, as well as the “three way agreement,” which disallows real estate professionals from joining one association without joining at multiple other levels.
Notably, Leeson cites other court decisions across the last three decades where judges “declined to hold that an antitrust violation is present where a multiple listing service merely conditions access to the multiple listing service upon membership in a board of realtors (sic).” At least one court found that “when administered properly,” Realtor® membership requirements have pro-competive benefits.
Currently, most states allow MLS access to be predicated on Realtor® membership, while in four states (Georgia, Florida, California and Alabama), MLSs are required to allow non-Realtors® access to the MLS, based on separate, conflicting court decisions. NAR no longer dictates rules on MLS access, allowing individual MLSs to largely set their own policies regarding access for non-Realtor® members.
Three of the recent broker plaintiffs are represented by legal counsel, while both Muhammad and Eytalis represented themselves in their unsuccessful cases, which were dismissed with prejudice—meaning they cannot re-file or amend their arguments and attempt to revive their lawsuits.
Muhammad’s lawsuit, which named Pennsylvania Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Lehigh Valley MLS (GLVMLS) as well as NAR, had sought $5.6 million in damages, also alleged racial discrimination, as he claimed local associations handed down harsher penalties to minority brokers and that rules disproportionately affected minority real estate professionals.
Leeson wrote that Muhammad “does not allege the existence of any direct evidence of intentional discrimination,” also dismissing those claims.
“The forced membership requirement imposed by NAR, PAR, and GLVMLS creates a coercive environment that disproportionately affects minority professionals who lack the financial resources to afford mandatory membership fees,” read the lawsuit.
In December of 2024, Muhammad followed up his initial filing by requesting a protective order against NAR and other local organizations, claiming they revoked his membership and access to Multiple Listing Service (MLS) without warning or explanation.
“As a result of the wrongful termination, the plaintiff and his five agents have been unable to input new listings, complete transitions or continue operations in the real estate market,” read the motion filed in the U.S. District Court in Eastern Pennsylvania on December 5.
Muhammad also asserted he had made “multiple attempts to resolve this issue with Defendants but has not received satisfactory response or resolution.” He told RISMedia at the time that he believed the situation was in retaliation to the October lawsuit filing, and claimed he had to shut down the operation of his office as of November 30.
Leeson also found these arguments lacking, writing that Muhammad’s assertion that defendants lied and claimed they could revoke his real estate license, noting that at different points Muhammad wrote that he did, in fact, “relinquish” his license or his agents’ licenses under duress, while at other points he claimed he “almost” did so based on the alleged threats.
