Less than a month ago, a federal judge handed the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) a major win; now that win will be reviewed by a higher court.
Douglas Hardy, Glenn Champion and Dylan Tent are pressing forward with their antitrust challenge to NAR’s MLS policies, filing a Notice of Appeal just three weeks after a Michigan federal judge threw out their case.
The move signals the plaintiffs’ determination to litigate what they view as fundamental competitive harm from NAR’s historic practice of tying Realtor® membership requirements to MLS access—even as similar lawsuits by brokers in other parts of the country have also faced dismissals.
In an emailed statement, an NAR spokesperson said that the organization believes that the district court correctly dismissed this case and continues to stand by the pro-competitive, pro-consumer local broker marketplaces, which local associations may choose to provide as a member benefit.
“Like other national membership organizations, NAR’s integrated structure is essential to the value we provide our members, and we remain committed to policies that promote competition, transparency and value for brokers and consumers alike. We will continue to defend our position on appeal.”
Hardy, chairman of Signature Sotheby’s International Realty in Michigan, told RISMedia in an emailed statement that the trio of plaintiffs respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and believe it overlooks the real competitive harm caused by mandatory membership requirements tied to MLS access.
“This ruling misses the practical reality facing brokers and agents across the industry. Conditioning access to the MLS on mandatory Realtor® association membership raises significant antitrust concerns, including unlawful tying and restraints on competition, that warrant full and careful judicial review,” Hardy wrote.
“Our case centers on a fundamental issue: whether access to an essential marketplace tool can be conditioned on joining and paying dues to a private trade association. We believe this structure limits competition, restricts market entry, and disadvantages both real estate professionals and consumers.”
On March 30, Judge Jonathan Grey of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to articulate sufficient “actionable” harm created by the alleged wrongdoing; that claim was not “viable.”
Grey also rejected their comparison to a landmark 1991 case that made MLS membership requirements illegal in three states, saying the circumstances here were fundamentally different.
“(T)here is no…violation simply because a voluntary trade organization requires membership to access MLS,” he wrote.
But Hardy said at the time that he and his co-plaintiffs were “actively evaluating our legal options, including appeal.” Today, they made good on that promise, filing their notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
Hardy characterized the MLS as an “essential marketplace tool” that remains “conditioned” on membership and fees of a private trade association—a core argument the plaintiffs built their case around.
The original lawsuit, filed in August 2024, challenged rules from NAR, local Michigan Realtor® associations and the local MLS, Realcomp II, alleging that they conspired to create an illegal monopoly by forcing real estate professionals to pay NAR dues in order to access the MLS.
A handful of lawsuits making similar allegations to Hardy’s sprang up around the country after the NAR settlement. At least two have already been dismissed, while others are still pending.
