A federal judge has dismissed the majority of federal claims in an antitrust lawsuit brought by four Louisiana real estate brokers challenging the National Association of Realtors®’ (NAR) mandatory three-way membership requirement for MLS access—though the door remains open for the plaintiffs to refile some of those claims.
Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana signed the ruling on March 25, siding with a recommendation from Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes issued earlier this month.
Some claims were thrown out permanently, including those tied to federal antitrust and First Amendment arguments. Others—specifically those against Kenneth Damann, the executive vice president of the Greater Baton Rouge Association of Realtors®—were dismissed with the option to refile within 21 days. The court also chose to hold off on addressing the plaintiff’s state claims for now—which include allegations under Louisiana antitrust law and other state-level causes of action—meaning those issues could still move forward depending on how the case proceeds.
Lead plaintiff Carla DeYoung provided the following statement to RISMedia. “NAR and the associations should not get too excited over this mixed ruling from the court,” she said. “The state claims were deferred, some claims were dismissed without prejudice and others with prejudice. If there is such a thing as anti-trust violations, the three-way agreement tied to MLS fits perfectly in that box, otherwise there is no such thing as an anti-trust violation and we will continue to pursue.”
A spokesperson for NAR sent RISMedia the following statement.
“We are pleased that the Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims. As we have previously stated, 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 its own requirements for determining access to the platform and for governing participants’ conduct on the platforms.”
The case was filed in January 2025 by DeYoung, a real estate broker and certified residential appraiser, along with three other Louisiana brokers—Carlos Alvarez, Darlene Currie and Tammy Jo Williams. The plaintiffs are self-represented.
They alleged that requiring membership in NAR, a state association and a local board as a condition of accessing the MLS was an anticompetitive practice that restricted competition, harmed consumers and disproportionately impacted minority real estate professionals.
A handful of other brokers filed similar lawsuits in the last few years, with at least two having been dismissed while others are still pending. In four states (Florida, Georgia, Alabama and California), it is illegal for Realtor® associations to require membership for MLS access, and NAR has delegated the decision to require MLS access to individual MLSs.
The defendants named in the suit include the Greater Baton Rouge Association of Realtors®, the New Orleans Metropolitan Association of Realtors®, the Bayou Board of Realtors®, the Greater Central Louisiana Realtors® Association, the Realtors® Association of Acadiana, Louisiana Realtors®, ROAM MLS, LLC and NAR.
The plaintiffs argued that MLS access is essential to a broker’s ability to compete—a position backed by a Federal Trade Commission report noting that, as a practical matter, any broker wishing to compete effectively must participate in the local MLS. They further alleged that ROAM MLS, the platform used by the defendant associations, functioned less as a true MLS and more as a data-integration tool used to enforce mandatory association membership.
The case drew attention in December 2025 when the plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion seeking to bolster their legal arguments, citing parallels to the Department of Justice’s ongoing antitrust scrutiny of NAR and a similar Michigan case, Hardy v. NAR, where brokers have raised comparable challenges to MLS access restrictions.
The ruling is a significant setback for the plaintiffs, though the case is not entirely over. The 21-day amendment window and the deferred state law claims leave open the possibility for continued litigation.
The lawsuit is one of several filed across multiple states in recent years challenging NAR and local association policies over mandatory memberships and MLS access, including cases in Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Mexico.
Editor’s note: This story was updated with a quote from NAR on March 30.
