Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Ill.: Multiple Listing Services conspiracy claims by homebuyers mostly survive dismissal, (Mar 27, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

National Association of REALTORS® itself was not directly named as a co-conspirator, but its affiliate local Multiple Listing Services were.

The federal district court in Chicago has mostly denied dismissal of claims against three large real estate brokerage firms in a putative class action lawsuit by homebuyers who alleged that the brokerage firms' participation in the National Association of REALTORS® Multiple Listing Services was a violation of the antitrust laws. The court, finding that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, dismissed the claim for injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and denied the motion to strike the class allegations at this stage of litigation. Some of the state antitrust and consumer protection law claims were also dismissed. All dismissals were without prejudice (Batton v. Compass, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-15618 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2026)).

Background. The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), a nationwide real estate industry trade association headquartered in Chicago, has affiliated associations nationwide on the state and local levels. Most of the affiliated associations maintain databases known as Multiple Listing Services (MLS); each of which operates according to rules promulgated by the NAR.

In 2020, the Justice Department Antitrust Division brought a lawsuit against the NAR, alleging that the NAR's rules, policies, and practices regarding MLS operations illegally stifled competition [United States v. National Association of Realtors®, No. 1:20-cv-03356 (D.D.C.)]. These included (1) practices affecting how broker commissions are set, and the lack of transparency to the buyer or seller; and (2) exclusions of non-MLS member brokers from accessing the real properties on the market. The case against NAR settled in less than one year. Following the settlement of the government's case against NAR, several class action lawsuits were filed by private parties; these private lawsuits named as defendants specific real estate brokerages, and also named the NAR as a co-conspirator if not a defendant party.

This is one such case. Here, there were 32 individual home buyers named as plaintiffs. Defendants were real estate brokerage firms, named non-party co-conspirators included some large real estate broker firms. Although NAR itself was not named as a defendant or a co-conspirator, the complaint itself alleged that "[m]ultiple local realtor associations not named as Defendants participated as coconspirators in the violations alleged herein and performed acts in furtherance thereof." The court ruled on the defendants' joint motion to dismiss, and to strike the class allegations.

Antitrust standing. The judge dismissed the claim for injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. On this issue, the judge and the defendants harkened back to a prior case against other defendants in which eight of the nine named plaintiffs are also plaintiffs in the instant case, in which it was ruled that home sellers were better situated to bring the antitrust claims than the home buyer plaintiffs; the plaintiffs accordingly lacked the antitrust standing to bring the Sherman Act claim. Inasmuch as that earlier case remains open (and awaits, inter alia, approval of a partial settlement), the dismissal here was without prejudice.

Personal jurisdiction. The judge found that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant real estate brokers under a conspiracy theory. Here, the alleged conspiracy occurred in Chicago, Illinois, where the NAR promulgated its rules and policies to which the local MLSs and the brokerage firms adhered to and insisted that their employees and members do likewise. This was a basis for the minimum contacts and due process requirements to support jurisdiction of the courts in Illinois. The court accordingly declined to follow Batton I and found that the it could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant brokerage firms.

One defendant broker, eXp World Holdings, Inc. (eXp), was found to have purposefully availed itself to Illinois law through its wholly-owned subsidiary, over which it wields day-to-day control and uses that control to implement NAR rules and policy. Similarly, defendant broker Weichert Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. (Weikert) had documents mandating that its franchisees "must be and remain a member in good standing of the National Association of Realtors" and comply with the NAR Code of Ethics. Weichert also appoints its franchisees to councils that regulate franchises and requires such appointees to attend all council meetings, while reserving for itself "the right to veto any council action." This goes beyond being a franchisor of an Illinois-based business entity, which, in and of itself would not suffice to purposefully avail Weichert of the Illinois law system.

Defendant United Real Estate Holdings LLC (UREH) is a holding company that partially owns a joint venture in Chicago. As a joint venturer, UREH has purposefully availed itself of Illinois law through the actions of its co-venturer(s) in which it willfully and knowingly participated.

The foregoing minimum contacts were related to the lawsuit. The court found "a direct relation between Defendants’ promulgation and enforcement of the NAR rules in Illinois, the imposition of those rules by co-conspirators, and the alleged injuries [to named plaintiffs] when they purchased homes subject to those rules."

For similar reasons, the court found that the plaintiffs had plausibly pleaded the anticompetitive agreement elements of their state law antitrust claims.

Statute of limitations. The court found that the "standard rule" applied, such that "each injury began to accrue on the date of home purchase, not when the conspiracy commenced." This, without more, would bar the state antitrust claims for some of the plaintiffs and other class members. The court then analyzed, on a state-by-state basis, whether the continuing violation doctrine would apply, including whether state law would be harmonized with the federal antitrust laws in such regard.

Some of the state antitrust law claims would fail on the federal level in light of the Supreme Court's Illinois Brick ruling. The state Illinois Brick repealer statutes of Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Utah were construed by those states as being proactively effective, so the court dismissed all claims that accrued prior to the enactment of those repealer statutes.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-15618.

Judge: Hunt, L.

Attorneys: Carol O'Keefe (Korein Tillery, LLC) for Mya Batton. Chahira Solh (Crowell & Moring LLP) for Compass, Inc.

Companies: Compass, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust IllinoisNews