Gibson vs. NAR, one of the many real estate commission lawsuits across the industry, has proposed a trial date in the Western District of Missouri.
With the onslaught of news surrounding NAR’s recently proposed settlement, it may seem confusing that Gibson vs. NAR is moving forward. The settlement, however, does not cover many of the defendants in this case—specifically, brokerages with more than $2 billion in transaction volume—so this case will continue to work its way through the justice system.
The trial is now proposed for Sept. 27, 2027, with a pretrial conference on Aug. 23, 2027 at 9 a.m. These dates were agreed upon by both parties.
Gibson vs. NAR is a copycat Burnett case that was filed by the same lawyers within hours of the verdict being handed down. Just like Burnett, it is a seller-based lawsuit, with the plaintiffs including recent homesellers who used NAR-affiliated MLSs anywhere in the United States.
The case alleges that defendants NAR, Compass, eXp World Holdings (the parent company of eXp), Redfin, Weichert, United Real Estate, Howard Hanna and Douglas Elliman inflated commissions, specifically via the “participation rule,” and alleges other broad anti-competitive practices.
Compass, though, recently agreed to settle all the seller cases, including Gibson—though a court will still need to approve that agreement.
The Gibson complaint was recently amended to include Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company as another defendant. BHHS Energy owns HomeServices of America and subsequently Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices. The amended complaint states that HomeServices of America of BHHS, under BHHS Energy, joined in the alleged conspiracy with the other defendants.
Along with the trial date, dates for pretrial documentation and filings have been proposed by the plaintiffs and defendants, ranging from a few weeks from now up to right before the trial date in 2027. Some dates are in agreement with both parties, and some are not
The class certification deadline is one such date that is still up for debate. According to the filing, the defendants cannot agree to certify the class this year, claiming they “have not seen requests for production from Plaintiffs.”
Other matters of discovery are still not settled on between the parties, but the judge will review all propositions, and the dates will soon be determined.
