In a significant win for real estate incumbents—specifically, the original entities targeted in the Burnett case—a federal judge has dismissed legal claims made by discount brokerage Homie, which had alleged a similar antitrust conspiracy as the numerous class-action seller plaintiffs.
Judge Dale Kimball of the District of Utah, in a 32-page ruling handed down last night, wrote that Homie had failed to show that the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) and other big brokerages had conspired to cause “antitrust injury” to the company.
“NAR is pleased with the court’s ruling to dismiss the case with prejudice,” an NAR spokesperson told RISMedia. “NAR will continue to facilitate local real estate marketplaces that provide fair and equal access to property information, foster competition, and empower NAR members to serve clients on their homebuying and selling journeys.”
Because the lawsuit was dismissed “with prejudice,” Homie will not be allowed to modify or refile the same claims to revive the lawsuit. The other defendants named in the lawsuit were Anywhere, RE/MAX, Keller Williams and HomeServices—the same companies targeted by the original Burnett suit.
Representatives for Homie could not immediately be reached for comment outside of normal business hours.
Filed just under a year ago, the Homie lawsuit was a unique—and somewhat lagging—example of the copycat cases filed in the wake of the October 2023 Burnett verdict, which found NAR and two brokerages liable in a conspiracy to inflate commissions, harming homesellers.
But the suit by Homie, a 2015 startup that aimed to offer lower-commission options for sellers, created the specter of a new class of litigants—companies or brokerages alleging their discount business models were boycotted or attacked by incumbents.
Kimball, though, was unconvinced in the end, writing that Homie cannot claim the same antitrust injury as the homesellers did in Burnett.
“As a matter of law, injury to a single competitor, standing alone, is not enough to prove antitrust injury,” he said. “(A)ntitrust laws are intended to protect competition, not individual competitors, and injuries to individual competitors are often the result of competition, not a symptom of harm to the consumers that antitrust laws were meant to protect.”
Kimball also repeatedly pointed to Homie’s admission that it was initially very successful in the Utah market, growing rapidly and gaining market share after launching in 2015. The company’s claim that NAR rules and policies “abruptly” prevented Homie from competing in the marketplace was unconvincing, Kimball wrote, and the assertion that consumers nationwide suffered as a result could only be seen as “conclusory” and not enough to move forward with the lawsuit.
Also notable, Kimball dismissed specific claims by Homie regarding the Clear Cooperation policy—which was not central to the Burnett case or other copycats, but now is central to other high-profile litigation in the industry. Homie alleged that Clear Cooperation plays a central role in preventing competition from brokerages who want to market properties off MLS—something Compass has also alleged in its legal challenges and public statements.
Kimball wrote that Clear Cooperation’s requirements simply don’t support antitrust claims of this nature.
“Homie’s Complaint fails to allege facts that explain how it was harmed by a requirement to market publicly advertised listings within the MLS—in addition to anywhere outside the MLS—as a condition of MLS participation,” he wrote. “(T)here are no facts alleged in Homie’s Complaint to suggest that the Clear Cooperation Policy harmed Homie (or competition) in any way.”
On the other hand, a private listing startup is still suing NAR over Clear Cooperation, as its claims were revived by an appeals court after initially being dismissed.
The discount brokerage was also barred by the statute of limitations, Kimball wrote, as all the NAR rules and policies (apart from Clear Cooperation) had been in place for many years before the lawsuit was filed. The existence of Burnett and the other class-action seller lawsuits challenging the same policies do not allow Homie to claim ignorance as the reason for its delay in filing the suit.
And specific allegations regarding individual agents, who Homie claims boycotted, disparaged and steered clients away from its listings, do not implicate NAR or the other brokerages named in the lawsuit, Kimball said, as Homie did not show any connection to these actions and larger entities.
“At bottom, none of Homie’s boycott allegations establish a plausible claim for antitrust injury because none of them suggest any Defendant agreed with any local agent to boycott Homie,” Kimball wrote.
