NAR prevails in another mandatory membership case
A judge said the claims in the case known as Hardy were “contradicted by reality.” Plus, plaintiffs in the Taylor case challenge Zillow’s motion to dismiss.
Key points:
- A mandatory membership lawsuit known as the Hardy case was dismissed this week.
- The dismissal comes days after the National Association of Realtors notched a victory in a similar case that was playing out in Louisiana.
- In the Taylor case, plaintiffs are opposing the motion to dismiss that Zillow filed last month.
A key mandatory membership lawsuit was dismissed this week in a Michigan courtroom, marking another legal victory for the National Association of Realtors.
The dismissal occurred just days after NAR notched a win in a different mandatory membership case in Louisiana.
Judge dismisses Hardy case
Allegations 'contradicted by reality': In a 23-page order, Judge Jonathan Grey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan said the plaintiffs failed to come up with plausible evidence supporting the four claims for which they sought relief.
"The Court finds plaintiffs' allegations of uniqueness and unavailability misleading and contradicted by reality," Grey wrote in the March 30 filing.
How we got here: The mandatory membership lawsuits that have popped up over the last couple of years have focused on whether agents and other real estate professionals should pay fees to access multiple listing service data. In some situations, gaining access to this information requires paying membership fees to local and state associations, as well as to NAR.
Filed in August 2024, the Hardy case was the first such mandatory membership lawsuit to surface following NAR's landmark commissions settlement. As part of the settlement agreement, NAR required MLSs to remove offers of compensation from their sites and "agreed to do away with the guaranteed broker commission," a shift that the Hardy plaintiffs said "greatly diminished any value" offered by the associations.
NAR has seen other mandatory membership cases dismissed, most recently last week in Louisiana. Other similar cases were tossed last year, although some of those dismissals are being challenged on appeal.
In his dismissal filing, Grey noted that many other courts have previously "determined defendants' alleged practice is not anticompetitive conduct at all and, in fact, promotes competition."
What NAR had to say: "We are pleased with the Court's decision to dismiss this case, which reinforces our position that NAR's policies foster competition and are not discriminatory," an NAR spokesperson said in a statement.
"Like other national membership organizations, NAR's integrated structure is essential to the value we provide our members, and we remain committed to policies that promote competition, transparency, and value for brokers and consumers alike," the spokesperson added.
Plaintiffs oppose motion to dismiss Taylor case
In a separate case involving accusations of steering, plaintiffs fired back at Zillow's recent motion to dismiss, claiming that the company has failed to adequately challenge allegations that it trains agents "to trick home buyers into touring homes and requires them to steer clients to Zillow Home Loans."
How we got here: The case known as Taylor was filed in September 2025. Its plaintiffs allege that Zillow's referral program inflates commissions and requires agents to steer homebuyers to the company's home loan department in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
Zillow attempted to get the case, which was merged with a related lawsuit in December, tossed last month, alleging in a Feb. 20 motion to dismiss that the lawsuit is "thin on substance." Zillow argues that it has "put consumers in control of their entire home-buying journey" by providing more choice and information, regardless of what agent or lender consumers ultimately choose.
What the plaintiffs say: In their latest filing opposing the motion to dismiss, the Taylor plaintiffs cited several examples that they said showed Zillow intentionally tricked buyers. One cited example: Zillow's "contact an agent" button, which the plaintiffs argue looks like a path to reach the listing agent but instead "routes them to a Zillow-Affiliated Agent."
The plaintiffs have also alleged that there is an in-person quota system where these agents are disciplined when they recommend competing lenders.
What happens next: Zillow will likely have one more opportunity to respond before the judge rules on the motion to dismiss.