Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
Compass v. NWMLS: Compass says 3PM strategy complies with new law
Compass filed a motion to dismiss April 23 arguing that its 3-Phased Marketing strategy fully complies with Washington’s incoming Private Marketing Law, which takes effect June 11 and requires simultaneous public and broker marketing.
Compass first filed its suit against NWMLS in April 2025, claiming that the brokerage-owned trade group has the most restrictive homeowner marketing rules in the country, and sought to undermine its “innovate” marketing strategy in favor of other dominant brokerages in the region.
The Washington bill, known as the Private Marketing Law, signed by the governor March 17, requires brokers to market residential properties simultaneously to the general public and all other brokers rather than to select groups. It was supported by Realtor® associations in the state, but opposed by Compass.
Compass contends the law “neither entitles NWMLS to listings nor codifies its rules” and disputes the MLS’s claim that 3PM creates “shadow inventory” that harms market transparency. In its own court filings, NWMLS explicitly claimed that at least parts of Compass’s 3PM process will be illegal when the law goes into effect.
NWMLS CEO Justin Haag countered that Compass is manipulating market data and hiding material information, characterizing the platform as an exclusionary practice that benefits a single brokerage at consumers’ expense.
A hearing is scheduled for May 21.
Batton plaintiffs fail to block NAR’s $52 million Tuccori settlement
Batton plaintiffs filed court papers seeking to block NAR’s settlement in a copycat case known as Tuccori, characterizing it as a “reverse auction” with terms only 12% of the prior Burnett settlement and alleging NAR negotiated in bad faith by abandoning earlier settlement talks once brokerages started opting into Tuccori.
Judge LaShonda Hunt swiftly issued a one-sentence denial of the Batton plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction within 24 hours, citing her previous ruling when the same group tried to prevent Anywhere from settling in Tuccori.
Hunt emphasized that plaintiffs would have an opportunity to raise all objections at an upcoming July hearing on Tuccori settlements and noted that the process is properly in place.
Judge Lindsay Jenkins, overseeing the Tuccori case, has allowed the settlements to proceed, though she expressed frustration at not being made aware of the parallel Batton case earlier.
The Batton plaintiffs have also appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Acevedo v. eXp: Trial dates
The Central District of California has issued a revised scheduling order in the case of Acevedo, Sims, Lundy, and Farrell-Nelson v. eXp Realty, LLC and eXp World Holdings, with a trial date now set for March 20, 2028.
First filed in 2023, the Acevedo case against eXp alleges that the company and its executives failed to properly disclose and address sexual assault allegations involving agents and executives. In a separate lawsuit, filed by Anya Roberts, a former eXp agent says she was drugged and assaulted by executives, and that the company ignored extensive reporting on sexual assaults.
The parties have until November 15, 2027 to complete settlement conferences before final pretrial filings and trial proceedings commence in early 2028.
The extended timeline provides approximately 18 months for discovery and motions practice ahead of trial.
Judge will compel woman suing eXp to answer some questions on past relationships
In the same lawsuit, one of the women suing eXp and two top recruiters will have to answer some, but not all, questions about her previous relationships, after a judge ruled last week that 13 of eXp’s inquiries were not barred by federal rules governing evidence in sex offense cases.
Judge Alicia Rosenberg said that those questions were not disallowed by a specific federal rule disallowing inquiries into “sexual behavior or sexual predisposition” in cases alleging sexual misconduct. She ordered the parties to find a date where Megan Farrell-Nelson—who has accused top eXp recruiters of drugging and assaulting her—can be deposed remotely.
The specific questions and previous testimony are largely filed under seal, meaning they are not available publicly, with Rosenberg noting generally that most did not involve sexual behavior or predisposition.
Rosenberg denied eXp’s attempt to have the woman answer 27 other questions, deeming them not relevant—or alternatively, that eXp could obtain the information elsewhere. A handful of other questions that eXp sought to force answers to Rosenberg deemed as “duplicative,” or that Farrell-Nelson had actually answered them at previous depositions.
