Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
Realtor® association, board sued over MLS merger
A handful of Louisiana brokers are suing their local Realtor® association and its board over a recently approved consolidation with ROAM MLS, seeking to remove the board members and reverse the decision.
The lawsuit was filed Sept. 2 by five local brokers, who accused the Greater Fort Polk Realtor® (GFPR) association of ignoring member feedback to push the merger through, according to local media.
According to the Beauregard News, GFPR polled members on the proposal and more than 70% said they did not want a merger. Board members Jeremy Jones, Logan Morris, Colleen McDaniel and Tammy Parker moved forward anyway, according to the outlet.
ROAM launched as an “aggregation” of several smaller MLSs around the state, jointly owned by five local associations. It launched in 2021, and is currently planning to transition all users to the Flex MLS platform.
Jones told the Beauregard News the merger is “about protecting our clients and doing what is best for them.” One of the plaintiffs, Steve Delia, accused the board of pursuing their own interests in an “authoritarian move,” according to the outlet.
Zillow shareholders sue executives, board, over Redfin partnership
Zillow is facing two separate lawsuits from shareholders over its partially rolled-back “partnership” with Redfin, as investors claim that company executives “knowingly and in bad faith” led Zillow into an agreement that violated antitrust laws while benefiting themselves by selling stock before the deal was upended.
Filed on Sept. 3 and Sept. 9 in King County, Washington Superior Court, the lawsuits largely focus on what they characterize as the obvious anti-competitive nature of the Redfin agreement, which saw Zillow pay its rival $100 million in exchange for a long-term rental syndication partnership (where Redfin would stop running its own rental listing service), as well as stock sales by executives as the deal faced scrutiny.
Filed by different law firms with two different plaintiffs, both lawsuits make substantially the same allegations and both ask the court for unspecified damages and to “reform” Zillow’s governance and board oversight. They are mostly based on public information and disclosures, but claim Zillow’s executives knew or should have known the antitrust risk as they also sold company stock (amounting to $81 million, according to one lawsuit).
“In violation of (Zillow’s) Code of Conduct, the (Zillow executive) Defendants knowingly caused or permitted (Zillow) to engage in the Antitrust Misconduct and to issue materially false and misleading statements to the public,” one of the lawsuits claim.
A Zillow spokesperson told RISMedia the Redfin partnership is “procompetitive and pro-consumer,” without addressing the specific allegations in the shareholder lawsuit.
Highlighted by both plaintiffs is the FTC’s aggressive action against Zillow and Redfin, which culminated in a settlement reached minutes before a high-stakes trial was set to begin on Aug. 24. Zillow framed that deal as a positive for the company and the industry, noting that Redfin will still syndicate its rental listing even as the FTC “unwound” other aspects of their partnership.
Named as defendants in the shareholder lawsuits are Zillow’s current CEO Jeremy Wacksman, CFO Jeremy Hofmann, Co-Founders Rich Barton and Lloyd Frink and the entire Zillow board. Zillow as a company is named as a “nominal” defendant in one lawsuit. All are accused of violating their fiduciary duties in pursuing and profiting from the Redfin agreement.
Both lawsuits also claim that asking the board to hold executives accountable would be “futile” based on members’ lack of independence or ability to make “disinterested decisions” related to the alleged misconduct.
Broker suing NAR over three-way agreement has appeal denied
Lou Eytalis, a Texas broker who decried membership fees and restrictions enforced by state, local and the national Realtor® organizations, first filed a lawsuit in 2024, described association membership requirements for MLS access as “an anti-competitive monopoly.”
Last week, an appellate court denied her appeal, writing that “conclusory facts” in the original lawsuit “are insufficient to state an antitrust injury,” and also dismissing Eytalis’ argument that the lower court abused its discretion in declining to address state law claims.
Eytalis was one of a handful of brokers that brought similar claims all across the country, varying significantly in specifics but all protesting NAR’s multi-tiered membership requirements—and dues they had to pay to three associations.
NAR has continued to defend the three-way agreement specifically, but stepped back from MLS policymaking in 2025, specifically removing language saying that it is “committed to the principle that association membership is a reasonable condition of participation in the association’s multiple listing service.”
