Lawyers who launched the original buyer lawsuits—making largely the same accusations as Burnett but claiming homebuyers suffered harm—will seek to block the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) from striking a deal in a copycat case, asking a federal judge to block that deal based on what they describe as a “reverse auction.”
In a filing in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on Tuesday, plaintiffs in the Batton case—first filed back in 2021—said that allowing NAR to settle in the copycat would encourage “a perverse race to the bottom,” arguing the organization won a “cheap release” of claims by quickly opting into a copycat case (filed in 2024, known as Tuccori).
“This tactic callously disrespected the courts’ time and efforts,” they wrote, pointing to other buyer cases where defendants have opted into Tuccori. “Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin NAR proceeding with its settlement in Tuccori in any way pending resolution of the Plaintiffs’ two…appeals.”
In a statement, an NAR spokesperson defended the settlement in the copycat case, saying that the organization “maintains that the settlement process established by the Tuccori court is in the best interests of the class and constitutes a fair and reasonable agreement.”
The spokesperson also noted that Judge LaShonda Hunt, who is overseeing the Batton case, agreed to pause that lawsuit while the settlement process plays out, which the spokesperson claimed “reflected” NAR’s position that the Tuccori settlement is fair and reasonable.
The settlement, which NAR announced on April 10, is meant to end the buyer litigation nationwide, for essentially all brokerages, MLSs and associations. Those lawsuits, while they did not threaten directly any further practice changes, still asserted billions of dollars in damages.
A handful of other big brokerages have already opted in to the Tuccori settlement, and both Hunt and Judge Lindsay Jenkins, who is overseeing Tuccori, have so far declined to intervene. NAR has expressed confidence the settlement will be approved, with a final hearing scheduled for July 28.
The Batton plaintiffs, however, have repeatedly argued that this procedure violates court rules and the rights of the potential class of homebuyers, claiming that the lawyers behind Tuccori had no motivation or ability to negotiate a proper settlement. They noted in the latest filing that the settlement was only 12% of the Burnett settlement.
Sources close to NAR previously declined to discuss how the amount was reached.
They also revealed in the latest filing that NAR had reached out in early January to negotiate with them, but suddenly dropped those efforts once brokerages started opting into the Tuccori case—and only two days after the Batton plaintiffs put forward “a specific amount.”
All this is evidence, they claim, that NAR’s settlement was not negotiated properly and should be blocked until an appellate court can rule.
“Rather than enforcing a system where lawyers zealously litigate in order to bring defendants to the settlement table and obtain the best deal for the class, the NAR settlement…sets a dangerous precedent whereby any lawyer, even one that has never sued the defendant and proclaims that it will not sue the defendant, can offer a cheap release in exchange for fees,” they wrote.
