Four Louisiana real estate brokers have filed a supplemental motion in federal court, seeking to add newly available legal authority and factual developments to their ongoing antitrust case against the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) and several Louisiana-based real estate associations.
The case, filed in January 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, alleges that NAR and its affiliated local associations have unlawfully restricted competition by conditioning MLS access through a mandatory three-way membership, requiring brokers to join NAR, a state association and a local board to access the Multiple Listing Service (MLS).
“We just filed a motion to add supplemental authority as we sit since April waiting on the judge to rule on NAR’s motion to dismiss our case,” Carla DeYoung, the lead plaintiff, tells RISMedia.
NAR provided the following statement to RISMedia.
“NAR stands by the pro-competitive, pro-consumer local broker marketplaces, which local associations may choose to provide as a member benefit. Each local MLS sets their own requirements for determining access to the platform and for governing participants’ conduct on the platforms. NAR’s recently-announced changes to the MLS handbook do not change the fact that MLSs have local discretion about whether to require association membership to participate. We will respond in court.”
Rule changes mid-litigation
The plaintiffs argue that NAR has made strategic modifications to its policies while awaiting settlement—changes they contend actually underscore the anticompetitive nature of the challenged practices.
Most notably, the plaintiffs note that NAR modified its Clear Cooperation Policy on March 25, while maintaining enforcement mechanisms that continue to use MLS access as leverage.
According to the supplemental motion, the revised policy still uses the MLS system “as the mechanism of enforcement by conditioning MLS access on compliance with the policy and penalizing brokers who fail to submit listings within the required timeframe.”
Parallels to federal action and other cases
The plaintiffs cite the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust action against NAR, noting that the DOJ documented NAR’s longstanding history of making “superficial or strategically timed rule changes during investigations or litigation while maintaining the underlying anticompetitive restraints.”
The motion argues that such modifications “did not eliminate the competitive concerns and did not preclude the need for judicial review.”
The plaintiffs also reference a parallel case, Hardy v. NAR, where similar challenges to NAR’s three-way membership requirement and MLS access restrictions are being pursued.
Like their own case, the Hardy plaintiffs have argued that NAR’s allegedly litigation-timed rule changes reflect the association’s recognition of the anticompetitive nature of its policies.
The Phoenix association incident
The plaintiffs highlight NAR’s enforcement history as evidence of intentional anticompetitive conduct.
Weeks before the case was filed, NAR issued a cease-and-desist demand to the Phoenix Association of Realtors® (PAR) after it sought to permit non-Realtor® licensees to access the MLS. According to the motion, NAR warned that the association’s charter could be revoked unless it reversed course.
“This conduct demonstrates that NAR has intentionally used its national power and institutional authority to compel local associations to maintain the three-way membership requirement and MLS access restrictions when those associations have sought to adopt more inclusive and competitive policies,” the motion reads.
Control over essential data infrastructure
The plaintiffs also challenge the role of ROAM, a platform marketed as an MLS but which they claim is actually a “data-integration platform combining listing information from systems such as Paragon MLS and other MLS platforms.”
“It is a digital tool used by Defendants’ associations to require Realtor® membership as a condition of inputting or accessing listing data,” the filing reads.
