Antitrust has been a loaded topic in real estate since at least the commission lawsuits of the 2020s that alleged many foundational rules and practices in real estate violated antitrust laws, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) launching its own parallel inquiry.
Now, federal agencies are looking to review and revise existing antitrust guidelines, the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) and MLSs are taking proactive steps to weigh in on this decision-making.
In February 2026, the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) called for public input on updating antitrust guidelines specifically related to “collaborations among competitors.” Existing antitrust guidelines, established in 2000, were pulled in 2024, which the DOJ and FTC now claim has led to lack of clarity among businesses.
“In an ever changing economy, businesses need transparency and predictability from enforcers more than ever. These times may require the federal government to update its guidelines,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson in the agencies’ letter, which specifically asked for input on specific technologies, dealmaking practices and specific developments
As of late May, both NAR and the Council of Multiple Listing Services (CMLS) have published letters encouraging the agencies to issue guidelines affirming the MLS structure as “procompetitive.”
NAR’s letter appears to reference ongoing industry upheaval, claiming that without the MLS, “the real estate market will likely be controlled by the largest brokers, portals, or technology companies which will limit competition and choices for consumers.”
“The MLS marketplace, like the real estate market overall, is highly competitive, with many business models serving buyers and sellers. Brokers and agents invest significant time and resources to obtain and ensure the integrity of their listings, so they may represent their accuracy to clients and third parties, as required under state and federal law,” read the NAR letter, signed by 2026 President Kevin Brown.
Specifically, NAR asked the DOJ for antitrust guidance that “reaffirms that MLSs are procompetitive infrastructure,” and “(c)larifies how trade association activities, including rulemaking and data-sharing, can support independent decision-making and competition without facilitating coordination among competitors.”
While the DOJ’s long-running inquiry into NAR appears to be dormant, former Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater stepped into one of the many buyer copycat cases back in December, urging a judge to view “unreasonable” trade association rules as inherently unlawful and suggesting that rules might still be inflating commissions.
Slater left her position suddenly in February, with Omeed Assefi, a former assistant U.S. attorney, now leading the antitrust division on a temporary basis.
The DOJ and FTC letter explicitly affirms that “(m)any collaborations and joint ventures among competitors are procompetitive and benefit the economy and consumers,” while adding that new developments in the business world have “led to increased requests for clarity” regarding antitrust laws.
“An unfettered free market safeguards competition to the benefit of the American people,” the letter says.
CMLS offered largely similar comments and concerns, saying that the “MLS model” is largely transparent and “has the hallmarks of procompetitive collaborations.”
“This letter urges the Agencies to publish guidelines that expressly recognize and protect procompetitive collaborative models, like MLSs, that enhance competition through open, non-discriminatory access to market data and systems, and facilitate non-exclusive, symmetrical information transparency. We encourage the Agencies’ future guidance to support and not impede the procompetitive characteristics of MLSs,” read the CMLS letter.
Both letters offer background information on the history and function of the MLS model so as to support the claims it is supportive of market competition.
The NAR letter subsequently lists ways in which the MLS “benefits the market,” such as expanding exposure of real estate listings to a broad pool of buyers, and reducing information asymmetry in the market by providing a “one-stop source” on local home sales for both buyers and brokers. The MLS also supports principles and laws of fair housing, the NAR letter claims, by offering “transparency and equal access to more listings,” as well as providing regulators data needed to regulate anticompetitive behavior.
At press time, around 100 entities and private citizens had submitted comments, many technology companies focused on AI issues, along with a handful of other trade associations.
Algorithmic pricing and antitrust
Another area of real estate that has caught antitrust attention is algorithmic pricing models, which recommend price setting to sellers. In real estate, such algorithms have been employed by property management firms such as RealPage which employ algorithms to recommend prices of rental units to landlords.
This has led to not only antitrust concerns about anticompetitive collaboration—the DOJ launched, but ultimately ended, an investigation into RealPage for supposed algorithmic price-fixing of rental units—but also about supposed discriminatory pricing against certain consumers.
In a letter to the DOJ and FTC from various rental industry associations, including National Apartment Association, the National Affordable Housing Management Association and the National Multifamily Housing Council, the associations request that “request that the agencies’ guidance on competitor collaborations recognize that the ‘rule of reason’ legal standard applies to algorithmic pricing software because its use can be highly procompetitive.”
The letter subsequently cites legal precedent that recognizes “the procompetitive benefits of gathering and disseminating information,” as well as recent judicial and regulatory findings that algorithmic pricing itself can “(drive) efficiency, (sharpen) price competition and (deliver) substantial benefits to consumers and the broader economy.”
“Government enforcers and courts can distinguish genuinely anticompetitive conduct from the legitimate, procompetitive use of algorithmic pricing software,” the letter reads, “and thereby avoid condemning innovative software that delivers significant efficiencies and benefits to businesses, consumers and society.”
