The brokerages also said they do not provide agents with software that filters or restricts MLS listings based on the compensation level offered.
For Steve Murray, co-founder of Real trend consultinghe said none of these changes were a big surprise and the industry should be “breathing a sigh of relief.”
“The terms of the practice change are reasonable and can be implemented without materially altering real estate professionals’ practices,” Murray wrote in an email. “These conditions tend to focus on increased transparency for consumers rather than wholesale changes to the way markets operate.”
Industry analyst Rob Hahn said neither company plans to continue requiring agents to have NAR membership, but many of their agents, affiliates, and franchisees will continue to require NAR membership to access their local MLS. He pointed out the need to maintain membership in the Real Estate Agents Association.
In the September 18th issue of his magazine, Notorious R.O.B. e-mail magazineHahn also called attention to the relatively low amounts in both settlements, calling them “bargain underground pricing.”
“The $55 million amount…is laughably small. That means plaintiffs’ lawyers will argue in court that they did what was best based on RE/MAX’s financial situation — just as they did in the lawsuit.” is) [Anywhere] Reconciliation has been reached,” Hahn wrote. “But RE/MAX itself literally says, “We pay you in cash.” At the end of Q2 2023, RE/MAX had cash and cash equivalents of $96.76 million. $55 million is half that. Yes, that’s significant…but it doesn’t change the situation. Anywhere paid out $83.5 million in settlement. At the end of Q2 2023, it held $100 million. At $79 million, it’s about 45% of our cash on hand. Again, while important, it’s not game-changing.”
NAR, for its part, said the proposed settlement would not affect how industry groups bring cases in court.
“Based on the latest filings, it appears they have agreed to do what is already required by our Code of Ethics and MLS Rules,” Mantil Williams, NAR’s vice president of communications, said in an email. said. “NAR is dedicated to our commitment to the local MLS broker market to ensure that consumers have access to comprehensive, unbiased and reliable housing information and that brokers of all sizes, services and pricing models can compete fairly. We will continue to work with the guidance provided.”
Regarding NAR’s participation rules, which require listing brokers to provide compensation offers to buyer brokers in order to list on a multiple listing service, Williams said that offer is always negotiable.
“Practically speaking, the difference between an offer of $1 or a penny and $0 is negligible,” he wrote.
Williams also said that brokers are independent organizations that can make their own decisions, and that it is the responsibility of local real estate agent associations to present the value proposition to brokers.
“If these brokers continue to see value in belonging to an association, they will choose to belong to an association,” Williams wrote.
Despite having to pay tens of millions of dollars, both RE/MAX and Anywhere believe the settlement agreement will be positive for the companies, affiliates, and distributors.
“This settlement is the right course of action to protect the U.S. RE/MAX network of broker/owners and agents from the risk of costly litigation and further harm,” a RE/MAX spokesperson said in an email. “I will.”
Ryan Schneider, CEO and President of Anywhere, shared similar views. This allows Anywhere to focus on taking real estate to the next level. ”
In addition to NAR, Anywhere, and RE/MAX, defendants in the lawsuit include: Home American Services and Keller Williams. Keller Williams and HomeServices of America declined to comment on the settlement, and attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment.
Both lawsuits, filed in 2019, NAR Terms of Participation. According to the plaintiffs, the fees inflate costs for consumers and violate the rules. Sherman Antitrust Act. NAR maintains that the current fee structure, which has been in place for more than 100 years, actually helps consumers.
Damages in the Sitzer/Barnett case are expected to reach up to $4 billion, and damages in the Mail case are expected to reach up to $40 billion.
The Sitzer/Barnett case is scheduled for trial on October 16, but a trial date for the email case has not yet been set and is expected to begin in early 2024.