Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Utah: Homie Technology’s antitrust suit against NAR and major brokerages time-barred, (Jul 16, 2025)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

National Association of Realtors and several major real estate brokerages allegedly conspired to enforce anticompetitive rules that inflated commissions, excluded Homie from the market, and interfered with its business relationships through a coordinated group boycott.

The federal district court in Salt Lake City, Utah dismissed with prejudice all claims brought by Homie Technology, Inc. against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and several large real estate brokerages, including Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, HomeServices of America, and HSF Affiliates. Homie alleged that the defendants engaged in a long-running antitrust conspiracy by adopting and enforcing NAR rules that inflated real estate commissions, excluded discount brokers like Homie, and facilitated a group boycott that harmed its business. The court held that all of Homie’s claims under the Sherman Act, Utah Antitrust Act, and for tortious interference were time-barred, as the alleged exclusionary rules and conduct dated back at least to 2019 or earlier. The court further found that Homie failed to plausibly allege antitrust injury, market exclusion, or defendant participation in any boycott, and that its tortious interference claim lacked evidence of intent or causation (Homie Technology, Inc. v. National Association of Realtors, No. 2:24-cv-00616-DAK (D. Utah July 15, 2025)).

Background. Launched in 2015 as a discount brokerage using technology to reduce transaction costs, Homie offered lower commissions and automated services through a consumer-facing app. The company quickly gained traction, and between 2017 and 2021, it ranked among the top five brokerages in Utah by market share. Homie claims this success occurred despite the existence of the Challenged NAR Rules, which were already in effect during that period.

Homie alleged that most Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) across the U.S. are affiliated with the NAR, whose Board of Directors and Multiple Listing Issues and Policies Committee issue the rules governing these MLSs. These rules and policies are published annually in NAR’s Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy. They are enforced not only by NAR but also by its affiliated state and local associations and MLSs, along with the standards outlined in NAR’s Code of Ethics.

Homie challenged five specific National Association of Realtors (NAR) rules, collectively referred to as the “Challenged NAR Rules,” which were allegedly anticompetitive. These include: (1) the Buyer-Broker Compensation Rule, requiring all MLS listings to offer compensation to buyer brokers, which Homie argues pressured sellers into offering high standard commissions to avoid buyer-broker “steering”; (2) the Commission-Filter Rule, allowing buyer brokers to filter listings based on commission amounts; (3) the Free-Service Rule, permitting buyer brokers to represent their services as “free”; (4) the Commission-Concealment Rule, discouraging disclosure of total commissions to buyers; and (5) the Clear Cooperation Policy, requiring public listings to be posted on the MLS within one business day. Homie contended that these rules suppress price competition, facilitate steering away from discount brokers like Homie, and sustain supracompetitive commission levels, thereby harming consumer choice and erecting barriers to market entry.

Claims. Homie Technology accused the NAR and major brokerage defendants of violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Utah Antitrust Act, and tortious interference with economic relations. Homie alleged that the defendants’ adoption and enforcement of NAR’s exclusionary rules reflect a coordinated action among horizontal competitors that restrains competition and causes anticompetitive effects in relevant markets. Homie further claimed that the defendants and co-conspirators intentionally interfered with its business by steering consumers away from Homie, leading to client cancellations and the non-renewal of business partnerships, using improper and anticompetitive means, such as group boycotts.

Time-barred. The court ruled that Homie’s claims were untimely and must be dismissed with prejudice. All of Homie Technology’s claims are time-barred under the applicable four-year statute of limitations for federal and state antitrust claims and tortious interference. The challenged NAR rules were adopted between 1996 and 2019, well before Homie filed its lawsuit in August 2024. Because Homie entered the market in 2015 and acknowledged both awareness of these rules and the public controversies surrounding them, such as the widely reported 2019 Burnett lawsuit, any injury would have been immediately felt, and thus the claims accrued outside the limitations period. The court rejected Homie’s reliance on the continuing violation doctrine, finding that it had not alleged any new and independent overt acts within the limitations window that would restart the clock. Acts like annual reaffirmations of the rules or steering by third parties did not qualify, especially since the defendants did not commit the alleged conduct.

Antitrust injury. The court found that Homie had not suffered a legally cognizable antitrust injury because it did not demonstrate market exclusion, loss of competition, or harm directly flowing from the defendants’ alleged conduct. Nor did it plausibly allege that the defendants agreed to engage in any boycott against Homie. Because the complaint failed to tie Homie’s harm to the type of injury that antitrust laws are designed to prevent, the court dismissed the federal and state antitrust claims as legally insufficient.

A plaintiff’s injury must flow directly from the alleged manifestation of harm on competition, such as higher prices, reduced output, or lower quality. Injury from mere participation in a market where competitors conspire to raise prices does not suffice, particularly when the plaintiff is a competitor rather than a consumer. Homie entered the Utah market in response to supracompetitive commissions resulting from NAR’s rules. Homie’s allegations suggest that it identified a business opportunity by offering slightly lower commissions than the industry standard and that it initially succeeded, rising to become one of the top five brokerages in Utah between 2017 and 2021.

Being unable to charge lower commissions due to an industry conspiracy that maintains high prices does not constitute antitrust harm. Homie benefited from the alleged price-fixing by entering the market as a discount alternative. Since Homie positioned itself to undercut inflated prices, it was not a victim of suppressed competition; instead, it was a competitor responding to the incentives created by allegedly anticompetitive pricing. Supreme Court precedent holds that a competitor generally cannot claim injury from a price-fixing conspiracy among other competitors because the competitor stands to benefit from being under the same price “umbrella.” See Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 334 (1990).

Alleged barriers. Next, the court turned to Homie’s argument that the NAR’s rules created barriers to entry and excluded discount competitors from the market. However, the court observed that Homie’s factual allegations contradicted this theory. Homie acknowledged that it entered the market in 2015, offered lower-cost services, attracted customers, and gained significant market share in Utah, all while the NAR’s rules were in effect. This market success directly undermined the claim that the rules functioned as exclusionary barriers. Courts have consistently held that when a plaintiff has the opportunity to compete and does so successfully, it cannot claim that it was foreclosed from the market. According to the court, antitrust laws protect the competitive process, not individual competitors; harm to a single firm is not enough without a broader market impact.

Reduced investment. The court rejected Homie’s suggestion that its inability to expand nationally as planned due to depressed revenue and reduced investment constitutes antitrust injury. Such speculative and conclusory allegations did not meet the standard of proof required. Even assuming Homie’s business suffered, antitrust injury must reflect harm to competition itself, not just harm to a single company’s economic prospects.

Regarding the “Clear Cooperation Policy,” one of the five challenged NAR rules, which requires that public listings be added to the MLS within one business day, Homie claimed that this rule “eliminated” its ability to market listings outside of the MLS. The court disagreed, noting that the policy does not prohibit alternative marketing; it simply requires that any publicly marketed property be listed on the MLS. Homie did not allege how this dual-listing requirement harmed competition or disadvantaged its business in any plausible way.

Boycott. Homie contended that local real estate agents engaged in group boycotts, steering buyers away from Homie listings and discouraging cooperation with Homie clients. However, the court found that these incidents, including social media posts, text messages, and MLS comment field entries, were actions taken by unaffiliated third-party agents, not by any of the named defendants. To sustain an antitrust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must allege a “concerted action” among competitors, that is, a conscious agreement to engage in anticompetitive conduct. Vague references to local agents allegedly affiliated with the brokerage defendants were insufficient to establish conspiracy or coordinated conduct. Mere affiliation, without allegations of control or direction, does not support an inference of agreement.

Allegations of defendants’ participation in NAR or adoption of NAR rules do not suffice to show they agreed to boycott Homie. Membership in a trade association, participation in its governance, or adherence to its rules does not automatically imply conspiratorial intent. Citing Tenth Circuit precedent, the court emphasized that parallel conduct or policy adoption by itself is not enough to nudge an antitrust conspiracy from “possible” to “plausible” under modern pleading standards. See Llacua v. W. Range Ass’n, 930 F.3d 1161, 1178 (10th Cir. 2019).

Tortious interference. Without specific factual allegations showing that any defendant intentionally induced Homie’s clients or partners to end relationships, the court concluded that the tortious interference claim was speculative and legally deficient. Homie’s claim for tortious interference with economic relations under Utah law requires intentional interference, improper means, and resulting injury. The court found that Homie failed to plausibly allege intent or causation on the part of any defendant. Although Homie cites five anecdotal examples of clients or partners allegedly terminating contracts or declining to renew due to external pressure, none of these examples linked the interference to any of the named defendants. Instead, they referenced the independent actions of unidentified real estate agents. Merely attracting a competitor’s customers or criticizing a business model does not constitute tortious interference.

Conclusion. Because all of Homie’s claims are time-barred and because it failed to state a claim for a federal or state antitrust violation or tortious interference with economic relations, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-00616-DAK.

Judge: Kimball, D.

Attorneys: Sterling Arthur Brennan (Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP) for Homie Technology, Inc. Thomas R. Lee (Schaerr | Jaffe LLP) for National Association of Realtors.

Companies: Homie Technology, Inc.

Companies: Homie Technology, Inc.; National Association of Realtors; Anywhere Real Estate; RE/MAX; HomeServices of America; HSF Affiliates; Keller Williams Realty, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust UtahNews