NAR prevails in Texas mandatory membership case
A judge dismissed a lawsuit filed in November by a broker challenging rules requiring Realtors to pay multiple sets of dues in order to access the MLS.
A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed a Texas case challenging mandatory membership policies, scoring a victory for the National Association of Realtors.
On July 22, Judge Reed O'Connor dismissed federal antitrust claims as well as state claims made by broker/owner Lou Eytalis against NAR, the Texas Association of Realtors, Wichita Falls Association of Realtors and Paragon MLS Connect. The case was filed in the Northern District of Texas in November 2024.
What the case was about: Eytalis' lawsuit alleged that the defendants engaged in monopolistic practices by requiring brokers to join multiple associations as a precondition for access to MLS services, which the suit noted is a necessary tool for most real estate agents to conduct business. The case also claimed such practices were discriminatory.
In a January interview with Real Estate News, Eytalis said membership policies were just one example of NAR "overreaching," adding that the association's rules were negatively impacting her business as a broker with around 30 agents in Texas and Oklahoma.
What NAR had to say: The dismissal is welcome news to NAR, which has faced several similar challenges over the past year from agents and brokers in California, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Louisiana.
"MLSs are operated at the local level and each MLS determines individual participation requirements," the association said in an emailed statement responding to the Eytalis case dismissal.
"Similar to other national membership organizations, NAR's integrated structure is fundamental to the value we deliver to members. It provides members with a unified voice on policy issues, a uniform Code of Ethics, and valuable tools and professional development opportunities that help members get to, and execute, their next transaction more efficiently."
Real Estate News has reached out to Eytalis for comment.
Why the dismissal? O'Connor didn't include any commentary in his motion, but he did write that the court accepted earlier conclusions and recommendations from U.S. Magistrate Judge Hal Ray, Jr.
In a June 9 filing, Ray wrote that Eytalis cannot make a claim under the Clayton antitrust law because it does not apply to services. Ray also noted that Eytalis did not provide enough facts to constitute an antitrust injury, nor did she show an agreement between the defendants that caused injury.
"Eytalis apparently has pleaded her best case possible under the existing facts, though she is not entitled to relief under the Clayton Act or the Sherman Act," Ray wrote.