A federal lawsuit filed against the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) by a broker alleging antitrust violations in Realtor® membership requirements was largely thrown out yesterday, with Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruling that Lou Eytalis failed to plausibly argue NAR policies constituted an antitrust violation, and denying her the opportunity to amend her claims.
One of several legal challenges to NAR’s “three-way agreement” (requiring multiple levels of association membership) and policies that restrict access to the MLS, Eytalis filed the lawsuit back in November of 2024, claiming she was forced to pay fees for inactive agents and that enforcement of rules were “inconsistent and arbitrary.”
Rules mandating Realtor® membership for MLS access, she argued both in court and publicly, prevent competitors or alternative brokerage models from succeeding.
Back in June, magistrate judge Hal Ray recommended that O’Connor throw out the federal claims and deny Eytalis the right to amend her lawsuit, saying that she had failed to allege these rules harmed competition, and that in the end, the injuries she asserted were only to her business.
“Eytalis’s statements regarding injuries to unidentified ‘other brokers’ are vague and conclusory. Eytalis pleads no other facts to support her conclusion that Defendants harmed competition,” Ray wrote.
O’Connor yesterday affirmed this conclusion, throwing out Eytalis’s federal claims with prejudice.
In a statement shared with RISMedia, an NAR spokesperson wrote that the organization is “pleased” with the decision.
“MLSs are operated at the local level and each MLS determines individual participation requirements. Similar to other national membership organizations, NAR’s integrated structure is fundamental to the value we deliver to members,” the spokesperson said.
Eytalis did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment.
At least four other federal lawsuits against NAR making similar arguments are still active, in Louisiana, California, Michigan and Georgia.
Notably, Eytalis did not hire a lawyer and represented herself in the case. She also objected to the ruling that no more amendments would be allowed, claiming she had additional allegations to present—including claims from another broker, who was threatened with “termination” if he did not pay Realtor® dues for his whole office.
O’Connor overruled these objections, but allowed Eytalis to re-file or amend state law claims against NAR, including breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The history of challenges to Realtor® membership requirements goes back decades. An explainer on NAR’s website (that was removed after the first broker lawsuit was filed in August of 2024) noted that MLSs in Alabama, Georgia, California and Florida cannot require Realtor® membership for MLS access based on court decisions, adding that NAR believes those rulings are “incorrect,” citing conflicting precedent in other federal districts that have upheld those rules.
