When the $1.8 billion verdict came down against the National Association of REALTORS® last year, it shook the real estate industry. But the aftermath—a sweeping, fast-tracked settlement that reshaped business practices without meaningful input from the professionals most affected—left many REALTORS® confused, frustrated, and questioning what comes next.
Now, someone is challenging that process—loudly and legally.
Enter Tanya Monestier: law professor, home seller, and official objector to the NAR settlement. In a powerful 136-page federal appeal, Monestier outlines what many in the real estate world have been thinking but didn’t know how to say:
This settlement doesn’t serve consumers. It doesn’t fix the problem. And it doesn’t hold the right people accountable.
The backstory (plain and simple)
The original case—Burnett v. NAR—began with a group of Missouri home sellers who alleged they were forced to pay inflated buyer agent commissions due to NAR’s cooperative compensation rule. The jury awarded $1.8 billion in damages.
But then came the twist.
What started as a regional case morphed into a nationwide class-action settlement covering over 40 million sellers—and the payout dropped to $998 million. Most home sellers? They’ll get around $25. The lawyers? A requested $333 million in legal fees.
As Monestier bluntly puts it:
“A settlement that provides the average class member with not ‘enough money to buy a pizza’ when they suffered over $10,000 in losses does not justify an award of hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to plaintiffs’ attorneys.”
What Monestier’s appeal is really saying
Monestier, who sold a home during the class period, filed both a formal objection and this appeal. She argues the deal is performative at best and dangerous at worst — a settlement that preserves confusion, rewards the wrong people, and sidelines the professionals who actually drive the industry.
1. No real reform
The headline change of the settlement is that buyer agent compensation can no longer be offered in the MLS. But Monestier isn’t buying it.
“The settlement’s injunctive relief does not prohibit the core antitrust violation complained of—advance offers of compensation—but merely takes them off the MLS and moves them to other forums.”
Translation? The behavior the lawsuit targeted still exists — it’s just been pushed behind closed doors and off the record.
2. Workarounds are already in motion
Agents and brokerages have quickly adapted, updating forms, training teams, and scripting new conversations—not because they’re trying to be sneaky, but because the rules weren’t broken to begin with.
“Monestier presented evidence that workarounds were widespread and endorsed by NAR, REALTOR organizations, and private brokerages.”
So instead of solving a problem, the settlement creates a patchwork of confusing solutions that do more harm than good.
3. Enforcement is a joke
Even if the changes were meaningful (they’re not), Monestier argues there’s no plan to enforce them.
“The settlement has no viable enforcement mechanism because it delegates compliance oversight to NAR, the very party alleged to have orchestrated the unlawful practices.”
Let that sink in. The group accused of wrongdoing is now responsible for ensuring compliance — with no outside oversight.
4. The judge never truly considered her objection
Monestier claims that her objection was struck from the record simply because she couldn’t attend the fairness hearing in Missouri—after being told attendance wasn’t required. To make matters worse?
“The court adopted, almost verbatim, a proposed order that it had instructed plaintiffs to draft before the fairness hearing.”
According to her brief, the judge let the plaintiffs’ attorneys basically write the decision—before hearing the objections.
You can read that final approval order here.
5. Even the DOJ raised red flags
Just two days before the final hearing, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a Statement of Interest warning that the settlement may “preserve the same anticompetitive behavior” it claimed to address. The court didn’t respond—during the hearing or in its ruling.
Why REALTORS® should be paying attention
This isn’t just legal drama—it’s about your livelihood.
Whether or not you agree with every word in her brief, Monestier’s appeal raises serious questions—about fairness, process and who really benefits.
Because when lawyers walk away with hundreds of millions, homeowners get no real relief, and REALTORS® get nothing but new headaches? That’s not justice, that’s theater.
And it’s about time someone pulled back the curtain.
Want to stay tapped in?
You’re in the right place. This publication is one of the most trusted, go-to sources in our industry for staying sharp, informed, and ahead of the curve. Keep reading. Keep questioning. Keep showing up strong.
For more information, visit https://darrylspeaks.com/.
